17th Parliament · 3rd Session
The President (Senator the Hoa.. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m.,. and read prayers.
– On the 4th July, Senator Cooper asked a question relating to the sulpha drugs - sulphamerazineand i sulphadiazine. I now inform the.honorable senator that there need be nofear of using up stocks of sulphamerazine before the importation of sulphadiazine is allowed. Sulphamerazine is beingmanufactured in adequate quantities in Australia, but a Large order of sulphadiazine has now been landed in Australia and the powder is being processed for early release in tablet form. Adequate supplies will then be available. Thestatement that sulphamerazine is less safe than sulphadiazine is incorrect. Sulphadiazine has no greater therapeutic value than sulphamerazine, which hasbeen extensively tested and proved satisfactory. The availability of supplier- remains under the constant attention of the Medical Equipment Control Committee.
Inglewood Post Office
asked the PostmastorGeneral, upon notice -
Is it a fact that land has been purchased, specifications prepared, and plans published in the Commonwealth Gazette for the erection of apost office at Inglewood, Western Australia; if so, when is it intended to proceed with this work?
– A site has been purchased at the corner of Beaufort- street and Ninth-avenue, Inglewood, and provision has been made in the post-war building programme for the erection of a new post office thereon. Plans and specifications are how being prepared in order that the work may proceed as soon as possible after the commencement of the post-war programme.
Debate resumed from the 12th September (vide page 5273), on motion by Senator Ashley -
That the billbe now read a second time.
– We approach this bill with mixed feelings; there is satisfaction in realizing that an endeavour is being made by the principal nations of the world to abolish war from the earth,but we remember, too, that a previous attempt in the same direction failed. In spite of the high hopes that we then had that the peace of the world was assured, a more terrible war than had ever previously afflicted the world broke out. Consequently, in preparing the Charter which we are now considering, the nations approached the problem of securing world peace from a different point of view. After the war of 1914-18, we said, in effect, “ We believe in the brotherhood of man and the common desire of the peoples of the world that the nations shall live in peace. We believe also that the best way to ensure peace is to throw away our arms, and so to make plain to all that we, at least, have no belligerent intentions and no desire to acquire additional territory; that our only object is to pursue our peaceful national destiny in our own way “. As I have said, that policy failed. On this occasion, the nations have not fallen into the same error. The agreement entered into at San Francisco was based on the maxim, “ Trust God, and keep your powder dry “. In other words, there is no intention on the part of the signatory nations to disarm; on the contrary, they propose to have such forces available that no nation will dare to endanger the peace of the world. So long as the nations remain in agreement that policy is sound. The Charter now before us is made up of all sorts of constituents which cannot be changed. We must either accept it as a whole or reject it as a whole; we cannotamend it. Although the Charter, like the speech made by the Minister (Senator Ashley), contains numerous pious hopes the matter really boils down to two major provisions, first, the Security Council, and, secondly, the International Court of Justice. I doubt whether the General Assembly will be of much value, as it will simply afford to the representatives of the participating nations the opportunity to talk things over. That will be its only function.I am doubtful whether the mere process of talking things over will really achieve much in the interests of world peace.I recall, for instance, that when the Olympic Games were instituted it was claimed that they would bring the nations together at sport and would tend to knit the peoples of the world togetherin friendship. But what actually happened? The Olympic Games, far from creating good feeling among the nations represented at them, only created enmity between those nations. Already 50 nations are to participate in the Charter, and we can only expect that a discussion among the representatives of so many nations, many of whom will inevitably persist with their own viewpoint, will accentuate rather than diminish their differences. When one studies the varying characteristics of the different nations this possibility becomes all the more apparent. Of the 50 nations participating 20 are South American republics, the majority of which are very small, whilst among the others we find such countries as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Liberia and Luxembourg. Obviously, the South American nations will present a common front in such an assembly in conflict with the representatives of other nations. Under such conditions, logrolling would appear to be inevitable on the part of groups of nations intent on bolstering up their particular cause. Therefore, the General Assembly will not prove of very great value. It has no executive power. Its only function will to bp to talk things over, and to appoint the Secretariat.
The Security Council, of course, is dominated by the “Big Three” - United States of America, Russia and Great Britain - and to a lesser degree China and France. Any one of those nations is given the right to veto any proposals. Therefore, we must ‘ depend upon the “ Big Three “ to preserve the peace of the world. Australia, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, should do all in its power to increase the importance of Great Britain in the councils of the nations. The Empire must speak with a single voice, because in the hands of the three Great Powers lies the peace of the world in this generation, and future generations. Our aim as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, should be to increase the power and prestige of the central executive of the Empire in every possible way. We must not be led astray by the fact that the Security Council will include certain elected representatives apart from the representatives of the Great Powers, because these people will have very little power indeed. It is to the United States of America, Russia, and Great Britain that we look to preserve the peace of the world. The aim of all Empire countries should be to support the British Commonwealth of Nations.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that something other than that has been done?
– According to the Minister’s second-reading speech, that has not been done.
The proposed Economic and Social Council seems to me to be redundant.
The next organization is the Trusteeship Council, the constitution and functions of which raise various questions for consideration. In my opinion, the International Court of Justice is destined to play a leading part in keeping world peace. If nations can be induced to submit their disputes to this court, which will consist of trained, independent judges, knowing that a fair decision will be given, then, even although the court’s rulings are not backed by a threat of force, a great deal will be accomplished. In the International Court of Justice properly fostered and developed I see the answer to the problem of keeping world peace. When it becomes clear that this court does not have a’ national bias, but is truly a world organization, nations will be prepared to put their cases before it.
There appears to be some difference between the United Nations’ Charter, which we must accept or reject, and some of the statements made by the Minister when introducing this measure. The Minister made certain statements which I strongly deny. He said -
If we are to prevent war in the future, we must not rely only on preventive machinery. The peoples of the world do not seek merely the absence of war. If we are to have real security in the world, we must see that some of the underlying causes of war are controlled or removed. It is well known that the economic and social problems of employment, standards of living and exploitation of colonial areas and peoples by the forces of imperialism are among some of the fundamental causes of war. To help in the solution of these problems and in the curbing of imperialistic exploitation of native peoples, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council were established.
But it is also clear that as a result of their experiences under some colonial administrations certain native peoples in the South Pacific and South-East Asia Areas were ready to listen to Japanese propaganda falsely proclaiming freedom from so-called “white man’s imperialism “ under the “ Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere “.
A mistake which I do not want to allow anybody to make is that the administration of any of the colonial territories had anything to do with the cause of the war. We must not run away with that idea.
– Nobody has suggested that it had anything to do with the cause of the war.
– The Minister suggested that in his speech.
– The suggestion was that treatment of the natives of those territories made the way easier for Japan. The honorable senator should read the passage again.
– The Minister stated -
It is well known that economic and social problems of employment, standards of living mid exploitation of colonial areas and peoples by the forces of imperialism ave among some of the fundamental causes of war. [ deny that either of those problems «a used Germany or Japan to attack the world. What economic causes led Germany to attack the world? Did we deny Germany access to raw materials or anything of that sort ? Obviously, the answer is “No”. Why did we fight? Because we were attacked and had to defend our very lives and everything in which we believed. I, at least, acquit the British Empire and the United States of America of having had any desire for aggrandizement or benefit from the war. As the war has proved, both of these nations, especially Great Britain, have made enormous sacrifices, in the case of Great Britain almost to the point of the complete extinction of the nation’s resources. No economic factor over which we had any control- was the cause of Germany attacking Europe, Everybody in Germany was supposed to have been in employment.
– Not before Hitler’s rise to power.
– They were supposed to be well fed and in good heart. Therefore, no economic problem in Germany was the cause of the war. The true cause was a desire to conquer the world, which arose from sheer racial conceit. Did Japan attack America and the British Empire for any economic causes? Did it attack us on account of some fault of ours in the administration of the Pacific mandates? Did it attack the Netherlands East Indies for anything which that power had done against the interests of the native population? Did it attack Burma and Malaya for anything which Britain had done that might be construed as ill treatment of the native races? No, if attacked those countries merely out of racial pride. Both Japan and Germanssaid to themselves, “We are the greatest nations in the world. We shalt show other races that we are superior tothem, and have a higher culture “. Th«underlying causes of international conflict referred to in the Minister’s speech were not the reasons for which Germany and Japan went to war. We should have a clear vision as to the causes of the war just concluded.
– What were, they?
– Germany and Japan attacked us because they had become too big for their boots. Th,Charter contains references to economic and social security and full employment Does that imply full national employment, or are we to take steps’ to ensure that there shall be full employment in other countries?
– We must Put our own house in order first.
– In signing this Charter, we give up, to a certain degree, our own sovereignty.
– We are all expected to take the initiative where possible.
– Is employment tube full in the national or in the international sense?
– Read the. Charter.
– That suggests that we are our brother’s keeper, and should see that full employment is provided in China, Japan and other countries. ] am in favour of full employment, and in raising the standards of living, but 1 doubt whether we should begin by raising the standards in our own country, oi whether we should try to force our view* on the peoples of other countries. Should we wait till other nations have caught up with us before we seek to improve our economic and social conditions? The reference in the Charter to full employment is redundant, and merely expresses a pious hope. At best, it cannot have much effect. We have to be realistic. Australia has already provided standards of living for its people perhaps second to none, excepting possibly those obtaining in the United States of America. Our employment ratio is probably greater than in that country. Are we merely to show what can be done in the way of full employment in our country? After all, the interests of Australia and of some other countries will certainly clash.
– In what respect will they do that?
– Employment in Australia depends largely on employment in Australian industries.
– Does not that involve trading with other countries?
– Not altogether. For the purpose of keeping its own industries prosperous, Australia has adopted a policy of protection. We are protecting our own industrialists against cheap labour from China and other countries. Are we to be subjected to dictation by the Security Council as to the protective duties that we may impose i
– The honorable senator says that we shall be dictated to from outside as to the industrial policy we shall adopt.
– How can all men be brothers without international councils?
– It seems to me that if about 50 nations are to be dictated to, and Australia is to be forced to allow this country to be flooded-
– Nobody said that.
– But the honorable senator does say it. He admits that Australia would be dictated to by an outside council. If that body decided that Australia must admit foreign goods free of duty, would the honorable senator accept its decision? In that way we might consent to a levelling of wage standards and of the economic wellbeing of the people, but the new standards would be nowhere near those adopted in Australia. It might be centuries before Australia would get back to present-day standards. I, therefore, see grave danger in the full employment policy and in the Economic and Social Council which will be set up. I understand that the inclusion in the Charter of provisions relating to full employment was due to the persistence of the Australian delegates, but I fear that unless sufficient safeguards be established, the standard of living in Australia, instead of being improved, will be lowered.
– The industrialization of China would help Australia.
– I take it that Senator Grant has in mind the establishment of factories throughout China, and that the goods manufactured in them will be free to enter Australia. If so, what will be the effect on this country seeing that wage and living standards of China are lower than in Australia? I cannot understand the honorable senator advocating that the economic policy of Australia shall be dictated by a Security Council subject to the influence of a number of South American republics and other nations which will serve their own interests first.
– There should be reciprocal action by all the nations. How can there be military co-ordination unless simultaneously there be economic coordination and understanding?
– That is where the honorable senator and I differ. So long as the nations comprising the British Empire satisfy their own people-
– The war would have been lost but for the part played by the United States of America.
– The honorable senator may be right. The same may be said of the part played by Russia. But 1 remind him that the war would certainly have been lost had not Great Britain stood alone against the enemy at one stage. The success of the Charter will depend on three of the Great Powers, and Australia should do everything in its power to increase the prestige and authority of the British Empire. Under the Charter, Australia will assume certain financial responsibility, but that does not worry me a great deal. I am more concerned with our obligation to make armed forces available should the Security Council require them for the purpose of maintaining the peace of the world. Australia enters into certain commitments in a spirit of goodwill, but it must be realized that these Australian forces will not be under our control but will be subject to the control of an organization intent on righting some wrong, or preventing a war which threatens the peace of the world.
A great portion of the Minister’s speech was an attempt to justify the actions of the Australian delegates at the San Francisco conference, particularly in respect of various amendments moved by them, some of which were accepted whilst others were rejected. The Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator McLeay), who was a member of the delegation which attended the conference, has forwarded to me a précis of his impressions of the conference, and as it is desirable that it should appear in Hansard I shall read it -
The smaller nations, and I must include Australia in this, appeared imbued with the idea of concentration on their own national stocks rather than on the international aspects, until brought face to face with this realization - “ Without the Big Powers there can be no world security - No Charter - So what?” Brought back to earth in this way, the smaller nations retracted from their previous adamancy and recognized the force and reality of the Big Powers’ arguments. In addition, those amendments finally secured by Australia were, in the final analysis, acceptable to Britain and America.
Senate. Australia must pay much more attention to matters of international concern than has been done in years gone by and this attention should not be solely confined to the Executive but should be encouraged in the rank and file of Parliament.
The Minister, in his second-reading speech, when dealing with the trusteeship provisions cast a slur upon the United States of America, Great Britain and Holland in respect of their administration of the Philippines, Burma, Malaya, and the Netherlands East Indies respectively.
– Why did those countries collapse before the Japanese?
– It is not the duty of the Minister publicly to pass a slur on these great nations; and to say that their administration of those territories caused the war is arrant nonsense. The Minister’s comment in this respect was not warranted. Australia, of course, has controlled New Guinea under mandate, under which we have not had power to undertake defensive works in that territory. Consequently, New Guinea was practically defenceless when the Japanese entered the war. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to place under the trusteeship system those territories which we administer under mandate. Under the Charter, if this be done, we - shall be able to undertake proper defence works in such territories; but the real issue is whether in the administration of such territories we should place ourselves under outside control. In this respect much will depend upon the final arrangements made at the peace table.
For instance, at the outbreak of the war, New Caledonia and Timor were weak spots in the defence of Australia, because the nations controlling those territories had made no attempt to provide proper defences. Therefore, in any future arrangements Australia should at least seek the power, in the interests of its own defence, to establish defence works in those territories. Such considerations, however, will be determined largely by the decisions made at the peace table in respect of both Europe and the Pacific. For instance, we do not know what treatment will be meted out to Italy, or whether Italy will be obliged to compensate Abyssinia because of the outrage which it committed against that country. Are the African colonies formerly controlled by Italy to be left under Italian administration, placed under trusteeship, or handed over to some other nation? We do not yet know what is to become of Poland, and in the Pacific, we do not know in what territories the United States of America may seek bases which it may consider necessary for the defence of the Philippines, and of the homeland. The part that the United States has played in this war entitles that country to ask for bases so that there will not be another “ Pearl Harbour “. We shall have to wait until the peace treaties are made to see what will happen in regard to those matters. I believe that the trusteeship proposals are somewhat premature. I have been unable to ascertain to what territories the trusteeship principle will be applied. For instance, will it be applied to the Netherlands East Indies? These territories, which are administered by the Dutch, have huge native populations. I should like to know also what attitude will be adopted towards territories such as Burma and Malaya, hitherto administered by Great Britain. Is it proposed that Burma and Malaya should be handed over to the Trusteeship Council which” would dictate to Britain how those territories should be administered? Will the Trusteeship Council tell the Dutch authorities how they shall administer Java, Sumatra and a portion of Borneo? The prevention of future wars depends upon the “ Big Three “ being in a position to defend themselves. If the United States of America wants bases in the Western Pacific, it is entitled to have them.
– But the honorable senator is against that proposal.
– No. Great Britain and the United States of America have declared that they do not seek territorial aggradizement as a result of the war.
– Great Britain made that declaration after the last’ war, too.
– And it was honoured. I cannot understand why the honorable senator seeks to hit Great Britain whenever the opportunity arises. The United States of America will not be running counter to its declaration by seeking bases in the Western Pacific. Australia, too, may require certain strategic areas for defence purposes. I am prepared to trust the United States of America in this regard. I do not think that those matters should be brought within the scope of the Trusteeship Council. The blood and treasure that the United States of America has poured out in the course of this war entitles the people of. that country to demand strategic defence areas. If it is considered that bases on territories adjacent to this country, such as Timor and New Caledonia - which, incidentally, were not defended by the nations charged with their administration - are essential for the defence of Australia, or New Zealand, and for the maintenance of peace in the Pacific, then those bases should be established. I assume that those matters will be decided at a peace conference, and that the Trusteeship Council will not be permitted to set itself up as the sole judge of which territories should be placed under trusteeship of other nations.
Finally, I emphasize again the need for close collaboration between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations in their approach to world affairs. It is regrettable that the Australian delegation to the San Francisco conference virtually resolved itself into one delegate - the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt), to whom the nominal leader, the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) quickly resigned his position. From thai time onward, it was clear that the only Australian voice heard at the San Francisco conference was that of the Minister for External Affairs. Prior to the departure of the delegation for San Francisco, we were led to believe that it was a non-party team, but our belief that the views of all sections of the community would be presented at the conference was soon dispelled. Instead of endeavouring on every possible occasion to increase the prestige of Great Britain in the councils of the world, every endeavour was made by the Minister for External Affairs to oppose the interest? of the British Commonwealth of Nation? in an attempt to force Australia’s own particular point of view.
– That is not true.
– The Australian delegation became a political body rather than a diplomatic body. As a “ Leader of the Opposition “ the Minister for External Affairs put up a great fight at San Francisco, but as a diplomat he exhibited only bombastic incompetence. That is not merely my own opinion, but also is the opinion of people in all part4 of the world.
– The press of tinworld does not hold that view.
– It does. Tin British representatives treated the Australian delegation as a man should treat children - in a very kindly manner. As a diplomat who could have gained some real advantage for the world, hp was an utter failure. He showed an entire ignorance of the essential thing.that go to make up a world peace. the conference was, in effect, a world peace conference, but he rejoiced in the fact that he was the leader, not of the big nations, but of the twenty South American nations and another ten or. twelve nations which might be described as small. That conception of world diplomacy is altogether wrong. For the next generation, world diplomacy will depend upon the goodwill of three nations. [Extension of time granted.] The idea of going to a peace conference and wanting to fight the world is not the best diplomatic way of ensuring the peace of the world.
– The honorable senator wants to fight the world economically.
– The honorable senator must realize that the Charter contains a provision for Australia and ib-6 rest of the world to supply armed forces.
– How can it dictate economically if it cannot dictate militarily?
– I do not want to dictate in any way. The suggestion by the Minister that the causes of war included the administration of native -States and’ the economic position of certain countries is absolutely fallacious, hi building’ on such premises we are building^ on an insecure foundation. The only object of the British Empire should he to show the world that its members form a real Commonwealth of Nations, which stands as one force in the councils it the world. The exhibition at San Francisco of a Commonwealth of Nations practically divided within itself was neither edifying nor helpful to us, ind only evoked the smiles of the world generally. I recommend members of this Parliament to make a closer study >f international affairs. As Senator McLeay hits suggested in the statement [ have read, a more intelligent interest in external affairs would be of benefit to Australia. When we set out to use diplomatic means of ensuring that we and the rest of the world shall obtain justice, we must do so as a member of one great Commonwealth of Nations, not as one of a loose combination of warring nations disputing amongst themselves. At San Francisco, the Minister for External Affairs, with all his expert knowledge, power of concentration, and force of character, did nothing to help the cause of the British Commonwealth of Nations. At any future conferences of this kind, the representatives of the British Commonwealth of Nations should meet and decide on a common policy before participating in the main conference. We must act with one purpose. Otherwise, we shall fail. I have some doubts as to the probable effects of some parts of the United Nations’ Charter, which, after all, is only experimental. However, I realize that we must either accept it or reject it in its entirety, and therefore I recommend the Senate to embark on the grave step of surrendering at least some of the sovereignty that we have always enjoyed in the hope of obtaining something better in the future. If we can, as a result of this Charter, ensure thai at least for generations, if not for ever, we shall be safe from war, then such sovereignty as we lose shall not be lost in vain. I hope that the Charter will develop until it eventually exceeds our expectations as an influence for world peace.
.- The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Senator Leckie) made a very poor attempt to depreciate the work of the Australian delegation at the conference of the United Nations held at San Francisco. He made very heavy work of his endeavour to say anything constructive about the Charter. Apparently, he has not applied his mind to the decisions made at the San Francisco conference as well as he might have done. I desire to indicate at once that I deeply regret that it is impossible for me personally to thank the late Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, for giving me the opportunity to attend such an important international conference. I should have been delighted to have been able to thank him sincerely for making it possible for me to attend the conference. Although I did not attend the gathering as a delegate, I endeavoured to do something in the interests of Australia by making available to its delegates observations or advice that I thought necessary. To that degree, I was highly honoured. The criticisms of the delegation voiced in the House of Representatives to the effect that it was a one-man affair, that those persons who attended as consultants and advisers were “ not wanted on the voyage “, and that meetings were held on Monday nights at which sketchy information was made available to them whilst they were not allowed to say anything, deserves to be described in good Australian vernacular, but I content myself by saying that they were a gross misrepresentation of the position. The conference was of tremendous magnitude. It was not a Sunday-school gathering, or one of those little “ round the corner “ meetings, where certain people can say what they like. The delegates were international intellectuals, who shouldered very high responsibilities on behalf of their countries, and who had been tried and found satisfactory, regardless of their political beliefs.
Throughout the conference the Australian delegates had a prodigious task. They had to make decisions on the most important matters spontaneously. This country was well and carefully represented by the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) and the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). As committee meetings were being held from morning till night, the members of the Australian’ party had few opportunities to confer with one another; but they arranged to hold meetings on Monday nights, and these gatherings frequently took place as late as 11.30 p.m. or midnight. The Ministers attended with the consultants and advisers, together with the Australian officials associated with the delegation. The Minister for the Army, as leader of the delegation, usually presided, and gave to us details of the problems confronting them, and particularly an account of what they had already accomplished. The Minister for External Affairs explained legal difficulties and international technicalities, and outlined the various problems arising in respect of certain matters as they came up for discussion at the conference. Every member of the delegation had a full right to address questions to the Ministers, and also to express his own opinions.
It is most strange that a member of the House of Representatives, who went to San Francisco as a consultant and adviser, has said that he was not able to give any advice to either of the two Australian delegates. The fact of the matter is that the persons who asked most questions at our Monday night gatherings were Senator McLeay and the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen). Their questions were answered immediately, and their suggestions were considered on the spot. Neither of them made a complaint at any of those meetings. No suggestion was heard that either of them was not filling the role which he thought he should fill, as one of them has asserted since his return to Australia. In saying that, 1 have nothing to hide; I merely wish to tell the truth. The honorable member for Indi suggested that he was compelled, more or less, to sit on a back bench, and could not occupy a position at the table. But all of us had to do that. I did not object to sitting away from the table; J was still able to offer advice. I was officially associated with a certain committee, and in that connexion I was allowed to take a seat at the table and do a job on behalf of Australia to thi; best of my ability. Seated all round me were members of the Australian delegation who could advise me. The parliamentary representatives to whom I have referred had the same opportunities as 1 had. The honorable member for Indi was not “ playing cricket “ in making the statements which he offered concerning his treatment at the conference. It is not wise to criticize unless we have good grounds for doing so. The honorable member left San Francisco about a fortnight before the committee stages had been concluded. If he is disturbed in mind because he was not able to place his fund of knowledge of international affairs at the disposal of the Australian delegation, it was entirely his own fault, because he fell down on his job as a representative of Australia through leaving the conference before it ended. Ho claims to have had leave to go, and perhaps he did have leave; but, if he was much concerned about the welfareof the United Nations, he should have remained at San Francisco until the task which he was sent there to do had been accomplished.
The conference was a remarkable gathering. It was not an assemblage of the representatives of nondescript nations. It was not a gathering of certain big nations and a number of smaller ones, as was suggested to-day by Senator Leckie. He told us that the only three nations which mattered were the “Big Three”. According to him, how dare Australia, and how dare the Minister for External Affairs; have the temerity to criticize any of the “Big Three”, and particularly the United Kingdom. There i3 a difference between fair criticism and the insinuations of the honorable senator. I give the lie direct to anybody who declares that the Minister for External Affairs attempted to do anything detrimental to the United Kingdom or any of the other United Nations.
– That was the effect of his action.
– If the honorable senator listens to the capitalist press of the United States of America, he will naturally draw wrong conclusions. In whatever action the Minister took overseas, he did it with a realization that he was doing something which he thought to be right and in the interests of Australia. We should not contend that because he said that he did not agree with the absolute right of veto of the leading powers, and differed from the opinion of the representatives of the United Kingdom in that regard, a representative of Australia has no right to voice his own opinions. When the Minister for External Affairs found that lie was unable to obtain a complete lifting of the right of veto, he accepted it graciously; but, while he had an opportunity to emphasize his views, he did so. Ho merely carried out the task entrusted to him.
The conference began with the representation of 49 nations, and at its conclusion 50 nations were represented. The solo object of the delegates of all of those nations was to obtain world security and economic security - nothing more and nothing less. A significant feature of the gathering was that it was held during a period of war. Germany had not then capitulated. When the United Nations had made up their minds that some scheme must be evolved for the future peace and security of the world, it did not then have a peace charter to guide it. The conference became the beacon light to guide the world to peace and economic security. Among American people, I noticed a profound interest in the conference, but at the same time a great deal of scepticism as to whether any concrete results were likely to be obtained. Nevertheless, I sensed an atmosphere of great hope amounting to a belief that something worth while would be accomplished. After nine weeks of committee work, and two weeks of plenary sessions, that hope was realized, because from the conference of the United Nations there emerged this Charter which we are asked to ratify. It has already been ratified by a number of nations, and I am confident that in time every nation which was represented at San Francisco will ratify it. The Charter has been criticized. This afternoon Senator Leckie made a valiant effort to reveal weaknesses in it and to show how hopeless Australia’s position may be in the future. But the honorable senator did not offer something better to put in its place; he did not make a constructive contribution to the debate.
– The Charter cannot be amended; we must either accept it or reject it.
– The Charter is not perfect ; if we analyse it from the ethical, the economic, or tie military aspect, we shall find a number of imperfections.
– That being so, criticism is not out of place.
– That is admitted. Although imperfect the Charter is the outcome of a genuine effort to bring about a better world.
– I acknowledged that in my speech.
– Yes, but the honorable senator then went on to show all the defects of the Charter. Despite its defects, the Charter is the unanimous decision of 50 nations, and whatever we may think of it, we must approach its consideration in an atmosphere free from party politics. Many of the nations represented at the San Francisco conference had experienced the horrors of war; indeed, while the conference was in session some of them were suffering greatly at the hands of the enemy. The delegates held entirely different views on many subjects - economic, political and social - but the driving force behind their deliberations was a sincere desire for peace and improved social and economic conditions in all countries. We may argue as to the causes of war, but if those causes be not basically economic why did Japan, early in the Pacific war, set out to deprive the Allies of rubber and oil in Malaya, Sumatra and Borneo? I submit that the basic causes of war are economic, and that the. only way in which peace can be assured to the world will be by a better distribution of the world’s raw materials.
– The Atlantic Charter provides for that.
– The Charter now before the Senate is an extension of the Atlantic Charter. Since war broke out six years ago various charters have been propounded to the peoples of the world. Leaders of the Great Powers met, and as a result of their deliberations the Atlantic Charter was announced to the world. It provided for four freedoms - freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those freedoms are incorporated in the United Nations’ Charter because the Dumbarton Oaks proposals carried forward the principles of the Atlantic Charter. The Charter now before the Senate is an improvement of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which formed the agenda of the conference which met at San Francisco. Immediately the conference met, twelve committees and four commissions were set up. Commission No. 1 had two technical committees which were charged with the responsibility of submitting recommendations in respect of certain aspects of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, as for instance the preamble, purpose, principles, membership, amendment and the Secretariat. Commission No. 2 had four technical committees which dealt with structure, and procedures, political and security functions, economic and social co-operation, and the trusteeship system. I shall not deal with those functions in detail but pass on to say that after nine weeks of committee work the Charter emerged. After adoption by the committees, the Charter was placed before the plenary session of the conference, and was adopted without any alteration whatsoever. As the result of the earnest work of the committees we have before us to-day a Charter which represents the unanimous decision of the United Nations.
I attended all the plenary sessions, and did my best to discharge my obligation? as one of the observers appointed by the late Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin. From my observations, I am convinced thai the nations represented there earnestly sought a better understanding between nations, and showed a determination to act concertedly against any aggressor which in the future might threaten the peace of the world. Addressing the conference, President Truman of the United States of America made a statement which was not a mere slogan, but one pregnant with meaning. He said -
If we do not want to die together in war, we must learn to live together in peace.
That aim shone as a beacon light before the conference, and I believe that all the delegates, of whatever race, nationality or religion, exhibited a genuine desireindeed, a determination - to accomplish something worth while in the interests of the future peace of the world. It might not be out of place if I were to quote some of the remarks made by speaker? at the plenary sessions because they are indicative of the sincere desire of all delegates to bring about a better world. President Truman was not able to attend the first plenary session, but arrangements were made for him to deliver an address by radio. In his speech, President Truman said -
With ever-increasing brutality and destruction, modern warfare, if unchecked, would ultimately crush all civilization. We will have a choice between the alternatives: » continuation of international chaos, or the establishment of a world organization for thenforcement of peace.
In those words President Truman expressed what the people of the United States of America thought. Although- at that time the world had not heard of the atomic bomb the nations represented at the conference realized that if another world war occurred civilization as we know it would be destroyed. Mr. Stettinius, who, at the time, was American Secretary of State, made a very important contribution to the discussions. He said -
All America spoke through Franklin 1). Roosevelt when he said : “ The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man. or one party, or one nation. It cannot be an American peace, or a British, a Russian, a French, or a Chinese peace. It cannot be a peace of large nations or of small nations. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world. No one of the large nations, no one of the small nations, i:an afford anything less than .success in this endeavour. Each of them knows too well what the consequence would be.”
Success in our endeavour is the voluntary i’0-operation of all peace-loving nations, large and small, acting with full respect for the equal sovereignty of .each, to promote justice among nations, to foster respect for basic human rights and to solve those common problems upon which the security and the economic and social advancement of their peoples so largely depend. There can be no end to the tyranny of fear and want unless the proposed world organization commands the allegiance of both the mind and the conscience of mankind. We cannot expect at this conference to produce a charter which will answer all the questions or resolve all the problems. No charter, no constitution, no basic document was ever drafted that was not open to improvement.
The Chinese delegate, Dr. Soong, said -
A long effort is required of all of us before an effective rule of law can be established in world affairs. We in China know it by bitter experience. The rule of law was to have been defended by the old League of Nations, but it was disregarded, as we learnt to our cost, despite the most solemn covenants entered into by would-be defaulters … of any message that his country desired to give the conference, it was that China must not hesitate to delegate a part of its present international rights to the Security Council in the interest of collective security.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition implied that under the Charter Australia would be obliged to surrender some of its sovereign rights. If he examines the Charter closely, he will find that any proposal involving the surrender of any of our sovereign rights must be approved by Parliament. The Russian delegate, Mr. Molotov. said -
The conference is called upon to lay the foundations of the future security of nations. This is a great problem which it has thus far been impossible to solve successfully. Anybody knows that the League of Nations in no way coped with this problem. It betrayed the hope of those who believed in it. It is obvious that no one wishes to restore the League of Nations with any rights and power which do not interfere with any aggressor preparing for war against, peace-loving nations, and sometimes lulled outright the nations’ vigilance with regard to impending aggression.
The Soviet Government was a sincere and firm champion of the estblishment nf a strong international organization of security.
Whatever might depend upon them their efforts in their common cause of the. creation of such a post-war organization of peace and security of nations would be readily done by the Soviet Government.
We will fully co-operate in the solution ot this great problem with the other Governments genuinely devoted to this noble cause. We are confident that this historic aim will be achieved by joint efforts of peace-loving nations in spite of all the obstacles in the way of this achievement.
When the British delegate, Mr. Anthony Eden, rose to speak at the plenary session he received what I considered to be the greatest ovation accorded to any of the delegates by the conference, a fact which I noted particularly because of the belief existing in some quarters that Americans were somewhat cold in their attitude towards Great Britain. Mr. Eden said -
We are met to agree to set up a world organization which will help to keep the peace when victory is finally won over Germany and Japan. Either we must find some means of ordering our relations with justice and fair dealing while allowing nations great, and small full opportunity to develop their free and independent life, or we shall soon head for another world conflict which this time must bring the utter destruction of civilization in its train. We cannot hope here to produce a complete scheme perfect in all its elaborate details for future ordering of the world.
It can be said that the conference took Mr. Eden’s advice, because it did a wonderful job. The Minister for the Army, who led the Australian delegation, made a very constructive speech. Indeed, his speech was the first really constructive contribution to the discussions. In his address to - cue first plenary session he got down to fundamentals, and his remarks evoked unanimous approval by the American press because of the fact that he placed definite proposals before the conference. The Minister said -
We in Australia know in full the calamity of war; what it costs in sacrifice, human suffering, and wasted opportunities of peaceful development. We know that a nation with our population cannot hope to stand alone against the aggression of larger and stronger powers. That realization is the basis of our national policy.
Tn our view the success- of the conference will be measured by one test, Will it bring into existence an organization which will give to the peoples of the world a reasonable assurance of security from war and reasonable prospect of international action to secure social justice and economic advancement.
The new association of nations must be endowed with sufficient military power to deal effectively and ruthlessly with any resurgence of Fascism and with any immediate threat to world peace. At the same time the constitution of the association must be made capable of development to meet new situations aB they arise.
The cardinal .points of Australia’s policy in relation to security may be re-stated as follows :
There must be speedy and orderly procedures for the peaceful handling of disputes between nations.
There must be a system of sanctions which can be imposed very rapidly and which will bc based on the united military strength of the Great Powers, but shared in by all powers.
A permanent system of security can be made effective and acceptable only if it has a foundation in economic and social justice, and real international stability can be achieved only by promoting measures of economic advancement as well as by maintaining security.
We believe that the obligation to contribute to enforcement action should be accepted by all members and that decisions of the organizations to apply enforcement measures should be equally binding on all members. The expectation that there will be complete and immediate application of measures for ‘collective security is essential both to deter the would-be aggressor and to bring reassurance to the peoples of the world who look for security. In our view the acceptance of this obligation is fundamental.
Australia’s foreign policy has long been especially concerned with the arrangements for economic and social co-operation. We take the view that peace and security must rest on economic justice and social security.
The fact that the Minister’s remarks impressed the conference as a whole is reflected in the adoption by the conference, without substantial amendment, or amendment in principle, of 26 of the 38 amendments submitted by Australia. The Prime Minister for Canada, Mr. McKenzie King, said - Iiib* the fires of war were still burning fiercely, the opportunity was given the conference to forge and fashion from those fires an instrument for world security. In the execution of that task there should be no avoidable delay.
The Indian delegate, Sir Ramaswani said - lt is economic injustice, and even more, soc in I injustice, that has bred for all time in the .past the great causes of war. and has led ti« these great armageddons. Therefore, in this hour, when nations are going through the rack of conquest and therefore have much more emphasis laid on security and armed strength to prevent aggression, let us not forget for a moment the vast emphasis that has to he laid on the causes that lead to war, economic and social injustice.
The Philippines delegate, General Romulo said -
We are here to determine whether the human race is going to exist or whether it is to be wiped out in another world holocaust. Those among us who have watched the death agony of great cities, those among us who come from the fox holes of battle fronts, have no illusions as to what another war will d<> to all men. We are here to fight for our lives.
The extracts I have cited are typical of the speeches made at the conference by the representatives of all nations, who exhibited a genuine desire that the conference should evolve ways and means to prevent war in the future and to uplift mankind generally. In such circumstances, it is not to be wondered that the conference evolved the great document we now know as the Charter of the United Nations. As 1 said earlier, the Charter emanated from the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. However, those proposals did not contain a preamble, with the result that Field-Marshal Smuts, of South Africa, who. played an important part in the formation of the League of Nations, successfully advocated the attachment to the Charter of a preamble which would summarize the ideals, aspirations and decisions of the United Nations. FieldMarshal Smuts himself submitted a preamble, which, after the closest scrutiny by the conference, was adopted. It reads -
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war … to reaffirm faith in’ ‘fundamental human rights … to establish.- conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international - law can be maintained . . . to promote social progress and better standards of life . . . and for these ends … to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure . . that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion oi the economic and social advancement of all peoples . . .
The preamble, in a nutshell, is the Charter. It summarizes what we, as a Parliament, are now asked to ratify. I do not propose to analyse the Charter in detail, because the Minister in his second-reading speech dealt with the more important provisions. However, I should like to address myself to some of the Articles. As I said earlier, the conference adopted 26 of the 38 amendments submitted by Australia. Whether or not the Australian delegation was empowered to submit those amendments to the conference, the fact remains that the conference saw fit to adopt so many of them. That is most important. Two of the amendments lead to significant alterations and six important obligations relating to trusteeship of dependent peoples were included in the Charter as the result of the Australian proposals. I do not propose to analyse the Charter but I draw attention to the following aspects of it: Provision is made for the maintenance of international peace and security, for effective collective measures to prevent or remove threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression in conformity with the principles of justice and international law. The effect of the Charter will be to bring together all those nations which subscribe to it. They must all accept obligations.
– What provision is made for power to enforce decisions?
– The Security Council is the body upon which rests the responsibility to determine what action shall be taken in respect of acts of aggression, or acts which are likely to endanger international peace. For the international military organization, Australia will have to provide armed forces in whatever strength is decided upon, and where and when required. However, before this part of the Charter can be given effect, an agreement between Australia and the Security Council must be ratified by this Parliament. In regard to the alleged abrogation of our sovereign rights, so far as I can ascertain, those rights are adequately protected. The Charter places upon its signatories an obligation to develop friendly relations among nations, based upon respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination for all peoples; to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian character; and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. To give effect to these purposes and principles, all members are obliged to fulfil in good faith the obligations which they assume. They shall settle international disputes by peaceful means so that international peace, security andjustice shall not be endangered. They shall refrain in international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. They shall give assistance to the United Nations in any action taken in accordance with the Charter, and refrain from giving assistance to any State against which the United Nations have taken preventive or enforcement action. But nothing in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, except with relation to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. Membership of the United Nations’ Organization includes the original members who participated in the San Francisco conference, or signed and ratified the Charter in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Membership is also open to all other peace loving States who accept the obligations of the Charter, and are considered able and willing to carry out the obligations. The Charter will take effect upon the ratification by France, China, Russia, the United States of America and the United Kingdom and a majority of the. other signatories. The Charter provides for the establishment of a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat. Men and women will be equally eligible to serve on all these bodies. That matter provoked considerable discussion by the committee to which it was referred. Despite the fact that participating in these discussions were representatives of nations whose outlook is distinctly different from ours with regard to equality of the sexes, it was agreed that there should not be any discrimination in regard to service on the various authorities constituted under the Charter. The General Assembly includes all members of the United Nations, and each member shall not have more than five representatives. The Security Council will deal with any dispute or situation assigned to it. The General Assembly may discuss any questions or matters within the scope of the Charter, and may only make recommendations to the United Nations or the Security Council, or both. The Security Council consists of eleven members of the United Nations -China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States being permanent members, and. the General Assembly will elect six other members of the United Nations, who will be nonpermanent members of the Security Council. Special regard is to be paid, in the first instance, to the contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security, and to an equitable geographical distribution. Non-permanent members of the Security Council will act for two years, and in the first election of nonpermanent members,, three shall be chosen for one year only, but any retiring member shall be eligible for immediate reelection. The Economic and Social Council will’ consist of eighteen members of the United Nations elected by the General Assembly. Six members will retire at the end of one year, six at the end of two years, the other six to retain office for three” years; each year thereafter the term’ will be three years. This council may make or .initiate reports with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related matters, and may make recommendations to the General Assembly, to the United Nations, and to specialized agencies concerned. One such agency is the International Labour Office which was set up under the League of Nations. [Extension qf time granted.’] The Trusteeship Council consists of members of the United Nations administering trust territories, the Great Powers, and as . many other members, elected for three years, as may be necessary to ensure that the total number of members shall be equally divided between those member nations which administer trust territories and those which do not. The council will formulate a questionnaire on the political, economic, social,, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of each trust territory and the administering authority of each trust territory will make an annual report to the General Assembly, lt may be argued that this does not amount to very much, but at least it means this: Reports submitted by trustee nations to the annual meetings of the General Assembly will be made public, and the attention of the world will immediately be focussed upon those nations which have not carried out their trusteeship obligations in accordance with the terms of the Charter. Publicity of that kind will be feared, and will be an incentive to the proper performance of trusteeship duties. Possibly Australia may . have to reorientate its attitude towards its mandated territories. 1 have not sufficient knowledge of the administration of those territories in past years to say whether or not that that will be so, but according to the answer given- to a question asked in this chamber recently, it would appear that the expenditure in those Territories per head of the population in certain directions speaks well for Australia’s administration…..
An International Court of Justice is to be the principal, judicial organization and shall function basically upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. All members of .the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute . of the International Court of Justice and any State - including those not members of the United Nations - may become a party on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of- the Security Council. Each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply, with any decision of the court in any .case to which it is a party, but nothing will prevent any member from entrusting the solution of its difficulties to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence, or which may be concluded in the future. The failure of any party to perform its obligations under a judgment of the International Court of Justice will permit the other party to have recourse to the Security Council, which may make recommendations or decide upon action to give effect to the judgment. There, in a nutshell, is the set-up of the International Court of Justice. This court is taking over the duties formerly allocated to the International Court established by the League of Nations. It is not new in conception, but it embodies a desire to establish what might be termed “ common law “ in international affairs. I have had no legal training, but I know that we have common law in Australia and in Great Britain. Under a permanent court of justice of an international character, the United Nations are seeking to establish a common law for international dealings.
– It is the power behind the law that makes the law observed.
– I agree. The power behind the law in this case will be the Security Council, plus the armed forces of the nations which can be called together to give effect to decisions of the International Court of Justice. The Secretariat comprises a SecretaryGeneral and such staff as is necessary. The Secretary-General is to be appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council and will be its chief administrative officer. If the office continues to be held by the person who occupied it during the conference, Mr. Algar Hess, the council will have an excellent officer. By its ratification of the Charter, Australia will pledge itself to higher standards of living, full employment, economic and social progress and development, and the provision of armed forces for the maintenance of international peace and security, but only after special agreement with the Security Council and groups of members, subject to ratification by the respective constitutional processes of each member. It may be argued that the whole of the Charter could be rendered obsolete by. the veto powers of any one of the “ Big Five “, because voting on procedural matters can be determined by an affirmative vote of seven members, but on all other matters only by the affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members. The immediate future peace of the world depends upon the five Great Powers. Senator Leckie has said that it depends upon three Great Powers, but in fact it depends upon the continued cooperation and friendship of the “Big Five “.
– What happens if they disagree?
– Then, as the French delegate said at the conference, “ God help humanity “. I have no fear of any disagreement between the five major powers for .the following reasons. The five Great Powers were the ‘ originators and instigators of the United Nations’ Charter. Furthermore, after eleven weeks of deliberation, their delegates, consultants and advisers, with the whole of the intelligence available to them, unanimously gave, their blessing to the Charter in conference with the representatives of the other nations at the final plenary session. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, I consider that the future peace of the world is reasonably assured as long as we have the good feeling and confidence of the “ Big Five “. This international agreement is the best thai has yet been reached in the interests of the peace and security of the world, because it is possible of realization and is unlike the Covenant of the League of Nations, which allowed even the United States of America to remain outside of the world organization, which never had the co-operation of Russia, and which permitted nations within the organization to “ get out from under “ when it suited them to oppose some other nation.
– That was the best that could be done at the time.
– I concede that point, but this is a much better agreement. The Charter has been well thought out, and if its implications are fully put into .effect it will ensure the future peace and economic security of the world.
I have already paid tribute to . th<” Minister for the Army as leader of the Australian delegation, and to his associate delegate, the Minister for External Affairs, for the splendid work that they did at the conference. . It frequently happened that committees met at 10.30 a.m., 2 p.m.,- and 8 p.m. They dealt with very difficult matters involving complex legal, domestic, and social problems. I pay this tribute to the Minister for External Affairs - he was almost a genius in that he was able to attend the meetings of all the committees. If, at any particular committee meeting, there was a matter of considerable difficulty which required the assistance of an alert and legal mind, the Minister! was there. I do not know how he stood up to the task. He rose early each morning and retired late each night. Apart from conference work, he was engaged on press interviews and in collaborating with his official colleagues in the preparation of important documents. I assure the Senate that he did a wonderful job. He was ably assisted by the Minister for the Army as leader of the delegation,” who was free to act in the way he wished on behalf of Australia at the conference. However, he is a good Australian, and he realized his limitations in certain directions, just ns the Minister for External Affairs realized his own limitations. These two men reached an understanding, and the result was that both of them were appointed to the highestbody at the conference. They had one vote between them, and this was exercised by the Minister for the Army, as leader of the delegation. Gibes have been thrown al; the Minister for External Affairs for being “ the great champion of the smaller nations “. At the final meeting of the Steering Committee, he was given credit for many improvements in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for which he had been responsible, and a member of the Peruvian delegation moved that he be acclaimed as “ the great champion of the smaller nations”. There are Australians who are so small-minded as to indicate that he was the champion of those nations to the detriment of the United Kingdom. Such people are not worthy to be Australians. They do not know what they are talking about. We must look at the future of the world from mi international viewpoint. It is not sufficient for us to say, “ We are Australians “, and to approach world problems from that standpoint. We must help to weld the United Nations, together and foster a common outlook. The chief consideration should be the prevention of future wars. The next consideration should be the uplifting of the peoples of the United Nations. This can be accomplished, and I believe that it will be accomplished while we have representatives at the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other functional bodies with views broad enough to examine problems internationally.
– Such problems, for instance, as immigration?
– Yes. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) that it is high time that the Parliament of Australia established a joint- all-party committee to deal with international affairs. I had the pleasure or seeing the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in session at Washington. It was taking evidence from, the citizens of America as to whether the United Nations’ Charter should or should not be adopted. In other words, the committee was obtaining the opinion of the American, people on the subject. There have been complaints in Australia that the Minister for External Affairs has not been expressing the viewpoint of the Australian public.
– That is all rot.
– I agree with the honorable senator, but, if there were any justification for the charge, the responsibility would rest directly with the members of this Parliament. Since I have been a member of the Senate, I have frequently seen papers relating to international affairs placed on our benches. But how much consideration has been given to them ? .
– Quite so. All members of the Parliament, irrespective of parties, must re-orientate their attitude towards international affairs. By doing so we shall help to bring about better world conditions. I pay a tribute to my colleague, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard), who worked assiduously throughout the conference, to Mr. J. F. Walsh, federal president of the Australian Labour party, who attended all meetings of the committee of which he was a member, land the plenary sessions at San Francisco, and to Mr. E. V.
Raymont, general secretary of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, who did a good job. Mr. Raymont had to “ sit on the fence “ with me, but he was sufficiently interested to give all of his time to help the progress of the conference. I also compliment Mrs. Jessie Street, who in representing Australian women at the conference rendered valuable service. She was not afraid to attend committee meetings, and, to use a colloquialism, “ put her bib in “. She frequently gave her advice, and often it was good advice. Mr. H. A. M. Campbell, editor of the Melbourne Age, is deserving of a tribute of praise for his services. Although he left San Francisco at the same time as the honorable member for Indi, he assiduously attended as many committee meetings as possible, and was present at all of the plenary sessions. I also pay a tribute to Mr. 0. G. A. Oberg, President of the Australian Council of the Employers Federation, and to the departmental assistants and consultants, who did good work in the interests of the members of the delegation. Those whom I have just enumerated were chosen as representatives of a cross-section of the Australian community, and they all rendered valuable service. Senator McLeay can speak for himself. He, too, did useful work, and his :advice was always available to us. I do not claim that the honorable member for Indi failed to do good work, but he became soured, and I believe that he would not have said what he is reported to have said, had he given full consideration to those remarks. I hope that I have offered constructive criticism, in indicating the impressions I formed while attending the conference.
.- This is a bill to ratify the United Nations Charter. I have no disagreement with the Charter itself, but there are some unsatisfactory, features connected with the San Francisco conference. An alltoolarge delegation, consisting mainly of persons whom the Government desired to reward for services rendered, left Australia without the benefit of parliamentary instruction, or public discussion of the policies which it would be expected to advocate. No matter how able a Minister may be, it is wrong that he should express Australian views at an international conference without a brief. Australia’s status amongst world powers has increased during the war, but we are still a unit of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) evidently assumed the role of a foreign minister of an independent country, rather than a dominion representative in the British family circle. The Statute of Westminster gives every dominion an equal voice to that of the United Kingdom in formulating foreign policy. The days of “ yes men “ at Imperial conferences has passed. It is very undesirable for an accredited Australian Minister to voice his personal opinions on matters of high policy to the world at large, without consultation and collaboration with the Empire’s representatives.
Exaggerated Australianism is bad Australianism. It implies a wrong conception of world affairs. The solidarity of the British nation was an immense factor in the winning of the war; it is the greatest factor in the world for peace, progress and happiness. In this connexion, the remarks of the Prime Minister of New Zealand are of interest He said -
I am convinced that no member on either side of the House will say anything that would start even a semblance of divergence between ourselves and Britain on matters of foreign policy. It was as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations that we made our contribution in this war, and it is in the same capacity that we can make our best contribution to peace, a contribution that will best serve our own interests as well as those of the world.
A statement on those lines by Australia’s Prime Minister would be welcomed by the Australian public .Solidarity has been the keystone of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Minister for External Affairs, with all his intellectual attainments, seems to have overlooked that fact at San Francisco. He appeared to be carried away by the cheers from the representatives of the Central and South American republics. Those countries did nothing to help the Allies in the war just ended. They scrambled on the victory band wagon without having paid their fare. They are Fascist in their outlook, potential mischief-makers in time of peace, and unreliable, allies in time of need. If force has to be applied in the future to prevent or end a breach of world peace, the “ Big Five “ will again have to do, and pay for, the fighting. The Minister for External Affairs did himself an injustice and created resentment amongst Australian citizens by his demeanour, which implied that the British Commonwealth of Nations could not efficiently safeguard our national interests.
The entry of Japan into the Second World War has completely changed Australia’s outlook in the Pacific. For our own and New Zealand’s protection and development, we must have complete understanding with the United States of America, the Netherlands, France, China and, above all, Britain. The substance of our place in international affairs is the development of our British relations with South Africa, New Zealand, India and Canada. The time is opportune for the appointment of a standing parliamentary committee on foreign affairs to have government policy continually under review, and to keep Parliament reasonably well informed. Imperial conferences should be held more frequently. One may yet be held at Canberra. It is essential that Australia’s representatives at such conferences should speak with full authority. “Full employment” is provided for in the Charter. This is a domestic rather than an international matter. The Minister has used external affairs as a lever to circumvent the Commonwealth Contitution. Employment, which really means full employment, is one of the matters in respect of which constitutional authority was sought in the ill-starred referendum of August, 1944. Had it been obligatory for electors to vote on this matter separately, there would have been a big “ Yes “ majority. I imagine many representatives at the San Francisco conference voted “full employment” into the Charter in order to expedite more important and more contentious matters. Full employment is now binding on the Australian Commonwealth and overrides the Constitution. It was an astute way to flout the will of the people. The Government evidently believed that full employment was unattainable, otherwise why was a bill dealing .with unemployment passed by the Senate la.” year?
Nobody but an asinine person would take any pleasure in seeing men 01 women unemployed, and certainly not the producers of primary and secondary commodities. The more employment there is in all walks of life, the quicker will bithe turnover of the products from the land and the factory. The quicker the turnover, the more constant employment will be. No manufacturer wants to see his depot or warehouse full from month to month. He wishes to be constantly clearing his warehouse for a fresh supply of goods for sale. A quick turnover of manufactured goods and a steady overseas market for our surplus primary products please a Treasurer. He collectsmore taxes and this helps to pay old-age. invalid and other pensions. Full employment is an ideal. No amount of lawmaking or economic professors’ .planning will ever get near that goal, desirable though it may be. Only by wise govern mental administration and a minimum tinkering with our currency can we kee unemployment down to the lowest level.
Articles 41 to 46 of the Charter outline the obligation of the United Nations in respect of the maintenance of international peace and security. Australia’s contribution will later be determined in detail. It is most important that in addition to land and air forces, the Navy must be strengthened by a fleet air armIt is doubtful if an aircraft carrier could be built in Australia. Britain would only be too eager to loan a carrier to the Royal Australian Navy. Such a gesture would maintain a close contact between Australia and Great Britain in the development of sea power, and provide an important link with the Royal Navy. An interchange of personnel on those lines would be of advantage to both the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy.
Sitting suspended from 5.^1 to 8 p.m.
– I support the bill. We are indebted to Senator Nash for his fine exposition not only of the Charter itself but also of what took place at the San Francisco conference. It is to the credit of the Government that it chose as one of the Australian delegation a man who was capable of observing what took place at San Francisco and of making it. clear to us on his return. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) is not present in the chamber. I do not know the reason why he lias not returned, but I understand that he, too, did a good job at San Francisco and collaborated with his colleagues to the best of his ability.
I was astounded that Senator Leckie should have brought this debate down to the level of party politics. A matter of such importance as a world charter, on which the peace of the world may depend, should be discussed on a high level, free from any tinge of party politics. However, it would seem that in this chamber, as in the House of Representatives, that could not be. The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) was the butt of much Opposition criticism. Party politics being what it is, I suppose that a slogan or battle-cry is necessary, and as the old bogy of socialism was killed by the election of a Labour government in the United Kingdom, as the dictatorship of the so-called bureaucrats has disappeared, and as taxation has been reduced, the Opposition was shorn of one feather after another, .until it became like the famous cockatoo which lived for many years at Tom Ugly’s Point in New South Wales. The older the bird became, the fewer feathers it had. It frequently disturbed the peace of the neighbourhood with its raucous cry of “ I will fly : I will fly “. When, however, it had no feathers at all left, the cry, although louder, was still “I will fly; I will fly”. The Opposition has not a feather to fly with, but I suppose had one of its members been in the Minister’s place, he would claim to have done very we.ll indeed. I prefer to stick to the Labour bird with feathers which has done very well for a number of years.
The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Senator Leckie) made an extraordinary statement when he said that the war which has just ended had nothing whatever to do with economics. I confess that I do not understand that statement. I have heard many people say that wars are not always directly due to economic causes. As one who has made a study of economic determinism, I agree that that may be so, but the statement that wars have nothing whatever to do with economics is absurd. The Japanese Empire was built on an economic basis. A person who criticizes British imperialism is branded as anti-British, but if he were to criticize the Labour party in Britain, he would, I suppose, no longer be antiBritish, but a good Australian or a good Britisher, as the case may be.
– Japan had access to raw materials and markets.
– Yes, but there was a British Empire tariff against Japanese goods. I am not by any means pro- Japanese; I am viewing this matter objectively. If the war had nothing whatever to do with economics, why were conferences held with the Dutch authorities in relation to the Netherlands East Indies, and why was a conference held in the United States of America to discuss peace? If wars and economics are not related, why did Sir Leith Ross go to North China to make a financial deal which would enable British capital to be used to exploit China in conjunction with a Japanese organization? If ever a war was justified from the Allied point of view, it was the war which has just ended ; but that war was a continuation of the war of 1914-18. To understand the cause of that earlier war we must’ know something of the iron and steel production of Germany from 1900 to 1913, and also something of the Berlin to Baghdad railway. Any one who has studied the map of the world knows how much of it is coloured red, to show that it belongs to the British Empire. A great part of the earth was controlled by people who were in a position to impose tariffs against the goods of other nations. German goods were subsidized by the German Government in order to compete against the goods of the British Empire. The competition became so intensified that in 1914 war broke out between Germany and Great Britain. Due to the stupid economics of the system of indemnities which operated after the war of 1914-18, the number of unemployed in Britain, Germany and other European countries rose to many millions. There followed the Bolshevik revolution in
Russia, and because of British fears of a spread of Bolshevism Adolf Hitler was actually subsidized by British imperialists. We all know that the head of the British heavy industries, Lord Baldwin, eulogized Hitler in speech after speech, and that the head of the Bank of England, Mr. Montagu Norman, said that it did not matter much- if money lent to Germany were never repaid as it would be used to fight bolshevism. Yet, in face of those facts, there are people stupid enough to say that wars have nothing to do with economics.
Before referring to the attack on the Minister for External Affairs I shall quote from articles by Mr. H. A. McClure Smith, the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. I met that gentleman once and I know him to be a man of considerable intelligence. There is no reason why he should boost the Minister for External Affairs if what he says about the right honorable gentleman were untrue. In the Sydney Morning Herald of the 5th May, 1945,’ Mr. McClure Smith said -
Because of his particular qualifications, the preparation of the Australian case has been primarily in the hands of Dr. Evatt, whose industry - somewhat ruefully attested by his hard-driven staff - has won the respect of his fellow-delegates.
Australia’s point of view on all matters is being kept well before the conference, especially in the executive committee, where Dr. Evatt represents the Commonwealth.
The result is that Australia is bulking larger in the conference activities than any other dominion, and probably more than any other nation of comparable size.
In a leading article headed “The New World Charter “ which appeared in that newspaper on the 28th June last, the following sentence appeared : -
Australia has emerged from the conference with a considerably enhanced reputation in the international sphere, thanks to the forceful personality of Dr. Evatt.
It is true that there was some criticism of the Minister, but that statement was not qualified. During this debate it has been said that the Australian Minister for External Affairs did not speak for the Australian people when he spoke at San Francisco. I wish that there were an election to-morrow on that issue, for in that event, no honorable senator sitting on the Government benches would have any fear of the result
The people who assembled at San Francisco had the most difficult task which any body of men and women have ever had to face. They were confronted with a world torn asunder. Europe was in a chaotic condition. The war ended about the time that the San Francisco conference started, but the meetings were held with Europe still in a state of chaos and war still in progress in the Pacific. The representative of every country which participated in the conference had its own internal problems, as well as external difficulties to face. The aim pf the conference was to- prevent wars, and the task of the delegates was to find -means to accomplish that end. That meant that consideration had to be given to the rehabilitation of the world economically, as otherwise war could not be avoided. I believe that it may not be possible to avoid war so long as the capitalist system lasts, but we try to do the best possible even under the capitalist system.
The League of Nations failed for a good many reasons. It was a bloc of victor nations against the vanquished. That must not happen again. No one could be more antagonistic to Japan than I am, but I realize that Japan, with its 98,000,000 people, and Germany with a population of over 60,000,000, cannot be ignored if the peace of the world is to be preserved. We cannot be successful economically in one part of the world if there is distress and privation in other parts. The best way to prepare for the future is to learn why the League of Nations failed. One reason for its failure was that it lacked power to carry out its decisions. Another reason was that one nation could veto a decision arrived at by all the other members of the league; decisions had to be unanimous. Under the Charter now ‘ before us for ratification the power of veto rests only with any one of the “ Big Five “ powers. The League of Nations had no armed forces at its disposal to check an aggressor, but under the new Charter each signatory will be required to supply armed forces if called upon to do so by the Security Council. A general staff is to be set up. In my opinion, that is a great improvement, but if we are to have only military alliances, and not also economic alliances, our efforts will be in vain. A few weeks ago we were very much perturbed over America’s sudden decision to terminate lend-lease. Personally, I did not see much wrong in that decision from the American viewpoint. It was not so much that lendlease stopped so suddenly, but that the Japanese war ended so suddenly; and we could not expect America to keep on supplying the world as it had done during the war years. In the circumstances, we got rather a shock when we heard of America’s decision. However, I believe that America and Great Britain will overcome the difficulties arising from that decision. I was bitterly disappointed to see some newspapers advocating the formation of a sterling bloc. That would mean that the world should go back to pre-Ottawa days. In such an event, we should have an American bloc; and in such a fight Great Britain would be confronted with many difficulties. As the result of the war, its industries are dilapidated and it would not be in the race against the productive capacity of America. America to-day has 50 per cent, of the wor’d’s industrial potential. I am perturbed at the attitude adopted by the Acting Leader of the Opposition, who resented any suggestion that Australia should give up this or that. Once an economic fight is started between Great Britain and the United States of America, the world would again be on the road to war. We shall again be on the road to war if America is given cause to point out that one day Great Britain regards members of the British Commonwealth of Nations as separate nations, and the next day as part of one Empire, and insists on an Empire tariff. Even the most mercenary minded and most inhuman person can see that he will lose everything in the event of another war. America knows as the result of the war of 1914-18 that if it is to be paid debts owing to it by other countries it must discard the policy of foolish tariffs and freely exchange its goods with other countries. While Germany was under the obligation of paying indemnities, America obtained possession of twothirds of the world’s gold, but at that time millions of Americans were out of work. The maintenance of peace in the future will not be a question of British regard for America, or American regard for Britain, but a question of practical reciprocity, in the realization that all will hang together or “ hang “ separately. One does not require much imagination to realize that with the advent of the atomic bomb the next war will not last more than a quarter of an hour. I have no complaint about the “ Big Three “ controlling the Charter, or the atomic bomb, or the world as a whole ; but the “ Big Three “ must, in exercising such control, operate on a reciprocal basis. The Acting Leader of the Opposition spoke of the preservation of our standard of living. Where would Australia be if no other country bought our wool ? People who think along those lines are living in a fool’s paradise. The Minister for External Affairs has done much to show the foolishness of their ideas of things. The British Empire, America, and Russia between them share at least 85 per cent, of the industrial productivity of the world. Some people say’ that those nations must fall out. I can see no reason why Great Britain and America should have cause to go to war in the future. Ever since the days of the Chartist movement, the British nation has been going towards the Left. The political pendulum has swung back and forth, but periodically there has been a political upsurge until to-day the Labour party has been returned to power in Great Britain on a programme, including the nationalization of the Bank of England, which has made honorable senators opposite stand aghast.
Russia, too, has been compromising. The Russian revolution to-day is not what it was in 1917. Lenin, one of the great political minds in history, discovered very early that Russia could not exist without compromising; and when he introduced his new economic policy, he remarked that under that policy Russia was taking one step backwards in order to take two steps forward. I cannot see why the fact that one nation is tending towards the Left and another nation is tending towards the Right, should cause war between them. In
America the same fight for liberty has been apparent for a long time, but because American capitalism is so strongly entrenched that fight has not been so obvious. However, Russia and America are so far removed geographically that there is no reason why their material interests should conflict. It is true that they have conflicting ideologies, but the person who says that war with Russia is inevitable is a criminal of the worst type. Russia does not want war. It already controls enormous territory, and Stalin’s attitude towards other countries is that if a country wants capitalism, or socialism., that is its own business. Russia has a population of nearly 11 ‘0,000, 000, and it must necessarily trade with the world. It has no choice in the matter. Thus America knows that unless there is reciprocity between nations it will mean the end of everything they hold dear. I say deliberately that we must have world economic planning. I quote the following statement by Mr. Henry Wallace, ex- Vice-President, of the United States of America, which I take from a report published in the Melbourne Argus of the 8th ‘September last -
When we dip deeply into the economic and scientific causes of these 30 years of terrible struggle, we find the outstanding factor to be the unequal rate of industrialization, and the consequent unequal growth of population and political power among the nations. . . . This trend towards equalization reverses the order of world trade which grew up in the nineteenth century. Sixty years ago a few hundred million people in Western Europe and the eastern United States owned the world’s workshop. Out of it they drew great profits and the egotism to proclaim cultural and political leadership. This overlordship of the Western nations has passed. We now know that /10 one world region can long claim exclusive economic leadership. In the years immediately ahead we see the United States, Russia, and the British Empire producing 8o per cent, of the world’s industrial output. But wo also see the stirrings of a rapidly expanding industrial consciousness in Latin America, China, and the Near East. Shall we minister to that consciousness with the services of experts and the sale of goods? Or should we consciously endeavour to prevent the industrialization of the so-called backward nations by withdrawing from the world market?
Mr. Wallace goes on to show that America should give what he calls “ seed “ capital to other countries in order to enable them to develop and raise their standard of living, and thus provide markets for American goods. If we cannot achieve that objective in the economicfield we shall have no chance of achieving co-operation in the military field; but if we achieve it in the economic field, there is little chance of our failing in the military field. I am inclined to agree with the honorable member for Denison (Dr. Gaha) in his advocacy of a universal currency.
– Does the honorable senator believe in a universal language’ Is Scotch a universal language?
– No, but it is a universal drink. With the advent of the atomic bomb, the human race must either live or perish. In the past, scientific inventions which were used for destructive purposes were capable of being used for constructive purposes also. Gunpowder and electricity have been put to this dual use; but we cannot use the atomic bomb for constructive purposes. Consequently, the “ Big Three “ must stand together. Should they go to war, it will mean the end of civilization. That is the position which confronts us. It is useless in such circumstances to talk about tinpot tariffs, and the imposition of a duty of a shilling on this, or that, article. The inventions of man must be used either to emancipate him or to destroy him. That is our only choice. I am sorry that the Acting Leader of the Opposition has introduced party politics into this debate. So far as I am able to judge Senator Brand implied that the Minister for External Affairs was anti-British.
– I did not say that.
– I drew that inference from a remark made by the honorable senator, but I apologize if I misconstrued what he said. However, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) said straight out that the Minister for External Affairs, judged on his activities at the San Francisco conference, was anti-British. Forgetting altogether the party to which the Minister belongs, there can be no doubt that he has a great mind. At San Francisco he represented this country which, with a population of only 7,500,000, is practically unknown overseas. As one who has knocked about the world, particularly in the East, I found that Australia is hardly known. For instance, when in Peking on one occasion I told some people that I came from Australia, and they said that I spoke very good English. Apparently they thought that I said I had come from Austria. They asked me if I lived in Vienna. When I replied that I came from Australia they asked, “ Is English the language in’ that country ? “ That will demonstrate how little is known about Australia in other countries. However, the Minister for External Affairs brought Australia forcibly before the representatives of the other nations at San Francisco. I am surprised that any individual should be able to do this so effectively as did the Minister. He happened merely to be the individual representing Australia. Nevertheless, we should realize the great work he performed on behalf of Australia. I regret that honorable senators opposite are endeavouring to make political capital out of his speeches and activities at San Francisco. From what I have ascertained, it would appear that the British delegates at San Francisco were as much anti-Australian as the Australian delegates could be said to have been anti-British. The leading light, but not the leader of the British delegation, the sinister figure behind that delegation was Lord Halifax. What is his record? With the late Mr. Chamberlain and M. Daladier, and another Frenchman, M. Bonnet, he was responsible for the selling out of Czechoslovakia. He was one of those who stood by Mr. Chamberlain while the Germans invaded the Rhineland and Austria; and he was one of those who, after the Japanese entered the war, agreed that Australia might be overrun, but if it were, Great Britain would later eject the Japanese from Australia. The same gentlemen who to-day are saying that the Minister for External. Affairs is antiBritish are the same gentlemen who said that our late Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, was anti-British because he asked America to come to our aid against the Japanese. I am not anti-British; but I say frankly that as the British had their own hands full against the Germans, the Japanese would to-day be in Australia had we relied solely on British help in the Pacific war. Had there been another “Nanking” in Adelaide or Hobart, honorable senators would have derived little consolation from being able to say to their wives, “At least we wennot anti-British “. The Australian Minister for External Affairs took a stand for Australia. He realized that in some instances the interest.of this country were not those of Great Britain. When the Minister said that Australia should have been informed of the Potsdam decisions, was there anything anti-British in that? Was it noi anti-Australian to withhold from the Australian Government information in regard to those decisions? All of us have relatives or friends who have given their lives in this war, and we are all aware of the sacrifices that Australia has made. Are we not justified therefore, in regarding as anti-Australian the action of the British Government in permitting the Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs of this country to receive the first news of the Potsdam agreement through the press? When the Minister for External Affairs said that Australia should be directly represented at the Japanese surrender at Tokyo, was thai anti-British? Anybody who knows anything about the mentality of Eastern peoples - and I claim to know a little about it - understands that “saving face “ is most important to these peoples. If the Japanese thought that Australia was a mere puppet state to be represented by Great Britain, this country would be of no significance at all to them ; but with our own representatives at the surrender ceremony, we were able to impress upon the Japanese the fact that there is a real live nation in the Pacific known as Australia. The Minister for External Affairs was quite correct in the attitude which he adopted, and he succeeded not . only in having this country, but also I understand, New Zealand, represented at the surrender ceremony. Was the right honorable gentleman correct when he said that Japanese guilty of atrocities should be tried as war criminals? The Australian people have been shocked by the publication in the press of atrocity stories and photographs v but my mind goes back a few years to when I returned from China and endeavoured to tell the people of this country, through the press - I had a little standing in public life nt that time as a member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales - what was occurring in China. With the exception of the Brisbane Telegraph the press ignored my statements. During my visit to China T had spoken to the Australian, Mr. W. H. Donald, in Hong Kong, and also to the representative of the American Literary Digest who wrote the book now known throughout the world as The Rape of Nanking. I asked the latter if the stories of Japanese atrocities were true. He said that not only were the stories true but also that no language could describe what was going on. Recently, pictures published in Australian newspapers have shown atrocities being perpetrated upon allied servicemen. We have heard of prisoners of war being tied to trees and bayoneted. I saw similar pictures seven years ago. Chinese men and women were tied in batches of 50, petrol was thrown over them, and they were burned to death. The people of Chapei were bombed and machine-gunned mercilessly from the air. The people of this country were not interested in those stories. It was a case of “ We stand by ourselves. What happens to the Chinese people does not matter to us”. If we had been a little more Australian and a little less influenced by the Chamberlain-Halifax brigade, we might not have been in the position we are in to-day.
– We would have been fighting the Japanese long ago.
– Well, we had to fight them eventually. Our attitude towards Germany in the early days of Nazi-ism was similar. In my opinion Germany was relatively in a stronger position when it launched the attack against Poland, than at any other time. According to authentic sources, when the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland, Hitler gave an order that if the French fired upon the German troops they were to retire. Had we gone to war with Germany at that time, the Germans would not have been in occupation of Czechoslovakia in which is situated one of the greatest armament factories in the world,
Skoda. In addition, the Germans would have had against them the Czechoslovak army, which at that time was the best mechanized army in Europe ; but the Germans gained control of Moravia and Bohemia, and as Bismarck said. “ He who controls Moravia and Bohemia controls Europe”.
– Does the honorable senator suggest that Australia should have gone to war with Japan in 1931?
– No. The point I am making is that the people who to-day are so shocked by Japanese atrocities because those atrocities have been brought home to them forcibly, would not give me a hearing when I tried to tell them of the atrocities which the Japanese were perpetrating upon the Chinese seven years ago.
– But the honorable senator said that we should have taken action.
– The Government of which the Acting Leader of the Opposition was a member took action on one occasion, but it was only to put in gaol Port Kembla wharf labourers who refused to load pig-iron for Japan. If that administration had remained in office, Tojo’s brigade would have been here long ago and this Parliament would not be in existence. I know that honorable senators opposite do not like these matters being awakened, but we propose to go on awakening them.
– The Charter which we are now discussing is not a political issue.
– And who made it a political issue? Who made the attack upon the Minister for External Affairs? Certainly it was not I. Australia must endeavour to cultivate the goodwill of other nations, particularly China; yet some Chinese business people in this country are being subjected to personal humiliation. One thing that the Minister for External Affairs might well do whilst he is overseas is use his influence to have Hong Kong returned to the Chinese. The British have no moral or ethical right to Hong Kong. In any case, within two or three years it will have little economic value, because with the help of foreign engineers the Chinese will build another port at the mouth of the Pearl River and so isolate Hong Kong. Th© Minister for External Affairs has urged that Japanese who have perpetrated atrocities should be tried as war criminals. I agree heartily with that. It is no use talking about democracy, liberty and free speech to the Japanese whilst Emperor worship is so deeply embedded in their minds. Shintoism is the be-all and end-all of Japanese life. The Emperor controls the lives and destinies of the Japanese people. There is in this country, and in other countries, a certain class of people who, whilst accusing others of being antiBritish, are themselves anti-American on every possible occasion. An attempt is being made to stampede one of the greatest men who have ever been in this part of the world, General MacArthur, into taking precipitate action in Japan. This attitude is not conducive to goodwill between Australia and the United States of America. For tin-pot press correspondents who know nothing of the East to go to Singapore and say what should be done or should not be done, is sheer impertinence. Surely General MacArthur knows the Japanese well enough. He knows that there are still 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 Japanese under arms, and at least 300,000 prisoners of war, excluding Chinese, in Japanese hands. He knows that if the Emperor were to give the word to fight, the Japanese people would obey immediately. Does any one imagine for a moment that General MacArthur did not discuss Japanese atrocities with his friend General Wainwright who himself was a prisoner of war in Japanese hands for more than three years? We are led to believe that because a victory march through the main street of Tokyo was abandoned, some weakness is indicated. Evidently, General MacArthur had good reason for abandoning the march. Whilst so many Japanese are armed, and there are so few Allied troops in Japan, any provocative act would be suicidal. The whole thing appears to me to be an attempt to undermine the prestige of General MacArthur.
By the cultivation of goodwill amongst neighbouring nations we may be able to secure valuable markets for Australian products. We should do our best to remain on the friendliest terms with countries such as China, the Netherlands East Indies and India. Soviet Russia has compromised by entering into an agreement with China. That agreement shows that Russia is making a sincere endeavour to maintain world peace. Most people believed that Russia would recognize the so-called Chinese Communists and not Chiang Kai-shek ; but Russia knows that China must bo rehabilitated and must, have a central government. China could provide a very big market indeed for Australian commodities. Geographically Australia is in a most favorable position. Russian centres of production are quite a long way from Chinese markets. It is true that there is a railway running through Russia and Siberia to Vladivostock and beyond to Mukden, Tiensten, Shanghai and southern China, but the distance is so great that the carriage of commodities for marketing in China would be most expensive.
We must alter our outlook. We are in a serious position to-day, and we must cultivate friendly relations with the Chinese people. I have no fear of the Chinese, despite their numbers, provided we do not antagonize them. It is true that they were a warlike people in the days of Ghengis Khan, 800years ago, but Confucius has had far more influence upon the Chinese mentality than that famous warrior. The Chinese people want to live in peace with their neighbours ; but we cannot establish good relations with the Chinese if we adopt the attitude that 7,500,000 Australians can dictate only only to China, which has a population of over 400,000,000, but also to India. We should think over our position very seriously indeed. 1 do not wish it to be thought that I am suggesting the opening of this country to indiscriminate migration. I am not in favour of that, but our attitude towards Chinese residents of thi3 country, particularly in the trading community, should be revised.
– Would the honorable senator reduce tariffs in order to admit their goods?
– I would be prepared to do that only if reciprocal action were taken. These matters have to be considered in the light of the economic and social aspects of the Charter. We must give and take. If the Chinese, with a population of over 400,000,000, can raise their standard of living by the slightest degree it will be of benefit to Australia. I am not in favour of indiscriminately lowering tariffs.
– ‘China is prepared to take our foodstuffs. Would the honorable senator be prepared to take anything in return?
– I could not answer that question unless it were put to me specifically. ‘ We have certain classes of manufacturers in Australia, and if they are suggesting the creation of a situation that would be detrimental to the nation I would oppose. them. If the reduction of tariffs would be detrimental to Australia I would be opposed to such action. lt would depend on the pros and cons of the situation. That is why the economic and social’ aspects of the Charter are equally as important as, if not more important than, the military aspect. If we can bring about economic equilibrium and thus help to solve the unemployment problem, we shall have gone a long way towards solving the problem of international peace. The Acting Leader of the Opposition has asked whether Australia is to act on its own account. That question has been asked in connexion with every reform that has ever been introduced. When the 44-hour week was advocated, it was said that we could not afford to implement it unless other nations did’ likewise. When old-age pensions were introduced we were told that the nation could not afford the cost. When reformers first advocated taking children OUt of the coal mines in Great Britain 100 years ago, the capitalists said that they could not compete with other coal producers without child labour. These reforms were carried on simultaneously throughout the world. In proposing to do certain things, we must presuppose that other nations will reciprocate. The United Nations Charter is the best that the mind of man can evolve, and it is wonderful that it is as good as it is. If I were an entirely destructive critic, I could easily pick holes in it because theeconomic system is full of weaknesses However, we must make the best of things as they are. It is a magnificent achievement for 50 nations to have agreed to this Charter. Some of them no doubt will not adhere to it, but, nevertheless we have the nucleus of an organization that can keep the peace of the world for many years to come, provided that we all work intelligently and sincerely. Tb,SucceSS of the Charter will depend upon our intelligent attention to the solution of world economic problems. If we, as individuals or as nations, have to make economic sacrifices in the interests of preserving peace, then we must do so without hesitation. Time is running out. Thi1 atomic bomb has in effect revolutionized everything. No other chance will be giver to the world. It is up to us to act a? quickly as possible, because the day is far spent and the night is at hand. I have much pleasure in supporting this bill to ratify the United Nations Charter, and I hope that we all will strive to the best of our ability to do away with the prejudices that exist, whether they be individual, sectarian, national, or race 001011’ prejudices. I hope that in Australia w<shall stop using some of the insulting terms that have been used regarding Asiatic races. A few nights ago, I wa: in company with some intellectual Chinese and some Europeans. One Aus tralian woman, a reasonably intelligent person, referred to “ these dirty yellow Japanese swine “. One of the Chinese said, “ The Japanese did hot commit these atrocities because they were coloured, any more than the German.1 committed them because they wen colourless “. That is the point. We must realize the truth in the words of Wendell Willkie - “It is either one world or nc world at all “. I believe that the human race has at last risen to the level at which it will try to wipe forever from this earth the awful scourge of war.
– This is one of the rare occasions when we can meet on common ground to discuss a proposal which should be free from any taint of party politics. If we accept this Charter of the United Nations, which we do, as being the result of the combined wisdom of those who were assembled at San Francisco for many weeks, it is fair for us to assume that the Charter is the best that can be produced for the purpose of ensuring peace on earth and goodwill amongst the peoples of the world. I was interested in the speech of Senator Nash, who was present- at the conference and had the opportunity, of which I believe he took full advantage, to give intensive thought to the very important and complex problems which arose. It is reasonable to expect that many points of difference may arise from close consideration of the document. Senator Nash himself admits freely that the Charter is not perfect, and says that many things contained in it could be criticized. That is why the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Senator Leckie) expressed some criticisms. It is his duty to dissect measures introduced into this chamber, and it is within his province to express reasonable criticism. Nobody would say that the honorable senator is a carping critic. His comments are fair and reasonable; in fact, ve are sometimes almost surprised at his moderation. The Charter is the outcome of many conferences that were held prior to the final conference of the United Nations at San Francisco. It is the result of many meetings of the leaders of the Allied nations. It is the embodiment, with additions, of the Atlantic Charter. Et is all very well for Senator Grant to hark back to things that happened in the past. He objects to the Acting Leader of the Opposition saying the war was not an economic war. Would any intelligent person suggest for a moment that an economic problem was the cause of the war? Does .Senator Grant claim that Japan attacked China, the United States of America, and the British Empire, and that Germany overran Europe for economic reasons? There is not one jot of evidence to prove that the war was “the result of economic causes, ft is abundantly clear that the entire resources of Germany were marshalled for the single purpose of satisfying the nation’s vanity, greed, and desire for world conquest. The same is true of
Japan. Who would suggest for a moment that these aggressors were actuated by economic motives? Every intelligent person knows why a war-like spirit was cultivated in both of those countries. Dictators sought, to satisfy their ambitions, and the common people had no voice in the decisions that were made.
Does Senator Grant suggest that, if democratic principles had applied in Germany, that nation would have gone to war? The German people had no chance to decide for themselves whether they should go to war or not. The honorable senator has used all sorts of jargon to misrepresent the position to the people of Australia. When asked to approve the sentiments expressed in the Charter, the honorable senator introduced into the debate statements which almost suggested that the people of the aggressor nations were justified, on account of economic pressure applied by other nations, in embarking upon the recently ended terrible conflict in defence of their own interests. The honorable senator did himself an injustice by making such statements. He should have’ denounced these people as the criminals who plunged the world into the horrors of war. Instead, he attempted, in some mysterious way, to saddle Lord Halifax and Mr. Chamberlain with the blame, because of something which they did or said years ago. There were no greater contributors to world stability than those two men. who were always prompted by motives of peace and goodwill to all peoples.
Senator Grant talks about the need for peace and goodwill among all the peoples of the earth, but is this a time when reflections should be cast on Great Britain? Whatever part it .has played in the war just concluded, we have proof positive that it did all it possibly could to avoid a conflict with Germany. Indisputable proof of the truth of that assertion is provided by the fact that it was unprepared for war. Its position was almost hopeless, and the Munich pact temporarily saved the situation. Senator Grant knows well that, while Great Britain was endeavouring to prevent international conflict, Germany took advantage of its trustfulness, and so did Japan. Although Great Britain and its dominion.- faithfully observed, the terms of the mandates granted to them after the war of 1914-18, Japan treacherously fortified its mandated territories and used them as hopping-off places when it entered the second world war.
I support this Charter because in all the circumstances it is the best that the nations can provide, but I fear that wars will never be entirely eliminated. Many years ago the Commonwealth Arbitration Court was established for the settlement of industrial disputes. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act declares that strikes are illegal, but that measure has not prevented them. Yet we have adopted the best means that can be conceived for the settlement of industrial disputes. Penalties have been provided for breaches of the act, but they have seldom been imposed.
This Charter is the best means that can bc provided for the settlement of international disputes. Documents of this nature are helpful, but while selfishness prevails they do not meet all requirements for the prevention of international conflict. With the tragic nature of the war fresh in our minds, let us remember that Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty “. Despite the goodwill and support of the nations of the earth which this Charter provides, the world needs a policeman. Several years ago, Japan sent its ambassadors to Washington to discuss certain matters with President Roosevelt at the White House, and even while that discussion was proceeding, and the need for international goodwill was being impressed upon the people of America through their President, Japan struck at Pearl Harbour. Does any honorable senator imagine that this Charter will change the heart of Japan, or that the people of Germany are impressed by it? Of course not.
To what degree does the Charter differ from the Covenant of the League of Nations? It differs in that certain powerful nations have been induced to accept it. I have no wish to reflect upon the attitude of the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) in his desire for international peace and goodwill, but I contend that world security depends upon the British-speaking races and those other powerful nations which can, if necessary, act as international policemen. Would any honorable senator say that the law against burglary is of itself a deterrent? What do people fear? They do not fear the law, but they do fear the penalty imposed by the law.
– I take it that the honorable senator expects Great Britain to be a world policeman?
– Not necessarily Great Britain alone, but English-speaking people - the American and British people.
– Russia and China are not English-speaking people.
– Where would the world have been if it had not been for those to whom I refer? What nation stood between the things that we stand for and the enemy that would have destroyed them?
– In the main, it was the United States of America.
– The English-speaking people, with the assistance of others, saved the world. Power to enforce’ the law causes the law to be observed. We all owe something to society, or custom, which has much to do with our relations with one another. I say emphatically that without the power to enforce the Articles of the Charter the labours of the delegates at the San Francisco conference will have been in vain. Let us be realists and profit by our experience. Freedom and liberty are not preserved by documents, however well expressed. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
– In other words, preparedness.
– Yes. History has shown, and will continue to show, that a nation which will not fight to defend itself will perish. Let us by all means strive for peace and goodwill, and let us also by our example demonstrate our sincerity. Senator Grant spoke of trade with China and other countries and the need to cultivate goodwill, but how has Australia treated the peoples of densely populated countries? The
White Australia policy is provocative to the people of Asiatic countries. Is Senator Grant prepared, as a gesture of goodwill towards China, to allow Chinese to enter this country freely? In order to show goodwill to the Chinese people, is he prepared so to alter Australia’s fiscal policy as to give preference to Chinese goods, even though those goods would compete with goods produced by Australian industrialists? If he is not prepared to do these things, will he tell us through what channels the goodwill that he advocates will flow? It is not sufficient to urge goodwill in our speeches; we must show it in practical form. We cannot expect to sell our foodstuffs and our manufactured goods to other countries if we impose high import duties on their products. I am not opposed to the Charter, but I do urge that we take a practical view of these things. We should not allow our enthusiasm to outweigh our judgment. Trade and commerce may cause wars in the future, as in the past.
– Then the honorable senator does agree that wars have economic causes?
– I do not say that all wars have had economic causes, but I agree that economic reasons have been responsible for some wars. The war against Germany did not have an economic basis. I accept the Charter as the best document that could have emerged from the San Francisco conference, but we should not rely on it alone without at the same time preparing for an emergency. History has a habit of repeating itself, and therefore, as surely as night follows day, offences will occur and wars afflict the earth unless there is a policeman to deal with wouldbe offenders. Let us not be foolish and again scrap our armed forces. Rather let us retain them as a guarantee that the articles of this Charter shall be observed. Let us show our goodwill towards other nationals by being prepared to play our part in the preservation of peace. There is nothing in this document before us about sanctions or the enforcement of sanctions, nor is there any reference to a limitation of armaments. There is nothing to show what contribution to world peace is to be made by other countries. Is it suggested that, whereas before the San Francisco conference the nations exhibited warlike tendencies, the existence of this document has so changed their hearts that there is no longer any need to give any thought to our own protection? Whilst I support the Charter and commend those who were responsible for it, I issue a warning against relying too much on it. We must be sure that we shall not be caught again.
– The speeches which have been delivered so far on this bill have been characteristic of the honorable senators who made them. Senator Nash, who was present at the San Francisco conference, gave to the Senate a clear exposition of the powers, hopes and aspirations of the nations whose delegates met in conference. In an excellent speech, Senator Grant referred to the causes of war and dealt with foreign affairs generally. Senator Herbert Hays was somewhat belligerent, but that is characteristic of the honorable senator. He has been in public life for over 30 years and is an astute politician. Whilst supporting the measure generally, he had many criticisms to offer, and he disagreed with much that Senator Grant had said. 1 compliment the honorable senator upon the virility and expressiveness with which he put forward his arguments this evening. However, notwithstanding the attacks made upon honorable senators on this side, I have no doubt that the Senate will agree to the secondreading of the measure. It is true, as Senator Herbert Hays has said, that the Charter is something of an experiment. After the war of 1914-18 the world as a whole resolved to prevent another war. The peace treaty which will be signed when investigations now proceeding are concluded will be but one of many treaties. But, after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, as was the case after the signing of previous treaties, further wars broke out. On this occasion, in the words of the Charter, we hope that the decisions made at San Francisco will go a long way towards preventing another deluge of blood. Because the atomic bomb did not make its appearance until the end of this war, many are wondering to what uses it will be put in future. Such thinking is only a repetition of the world’s thoughts at the conclusion of the war of 1914-18. I clearly remember the discussions which took place at the conclusion of that war. As the result of scientific discoveries during that war, another war would be too awful to contemplate. During the war of 1914-18, we thought that the most powerful flying machine that the mind of man was capable of devising had been evolved. However, when one compares those machines, of which specimens are now exhibited in the Australian War Memorial at Canberra, with the monster machines that have been developed during this war, we realize that we were wrong in thinking that science had reached its limit in the field of aviation during the war of 1914-18. It had only begun in that field. And no one can foretell the developments which will take place in the field of aviation in the future.
After the war of 1914-18 we visualized that it would be possible, as the result of the discovery of poison gas and the use of aeroplanes, to wipe out whole populations should another war occur. Today we have similar visions. We visualize that with the atomic bomb it will be possible to destroy whole nations practically in the twinkling of an eye. “ Whether the nations represented at San Francisco would have written a different Charter had the discovery of the atomic, bomb been announced beforehand we do not know. Whilst I have approached this subject somewhat sceptically in view of the experiences of past generations, wondering whether this document will really prove of practical value in the future, I believe that the Charter offers some chance to the world to reform; and by subscribing to the sentiments expressed in it we shall probably make the world better than it is to-day. The preamble to the Charter reads -
Wb the Peoples of the United Nations Determined - to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold Borrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom . .
In the realization of those hopes lies the future of the human race. I was rather surprised to hear some honorable senators opposite contend that economic causes play no part in the origin of wars. Most of the wars which have occurred in recent years have arisen from economic causes. I agree with the view that the war of 1914-18 resulted largely from Germany’s desire for expansion. As a producing nation, Germany had to find markets for its goods, and in doing so it came into conflict with the economic interests of other nations. One might ask the reason why Great Britain sought control of the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Was it not for reasons of trade and commerce? Whilst I do not forget the treachery of the Japanese in this war, I recall that for many years previously the Japanese protested against the exclusion of their nationals from other countries. Therefore, it was not surprising that Japan resorted to arms in order to extend its interests. It is clear that economic conditions have caused wars. It is also significant that recent wars have resulted from the expansion of capitalism from a national to an international basis. Various interests combined with the objective of dividing up the raw materials of the world, and thus conflict arose between the “haves” and the “have nots”. Therefore, it is idle to argue that economic causes do not play an important part in the origin of wars. Whilst I realize that, in the past, treaties have been made and broken, I regard this Charter as a sincere attempt by the participating nations to maintain peace in the future. The Great Powers dominate the Charter, but they have shown regard for the interests of the smaller nations. No suggestion is made that in the future the sources of raw materials shall be denied to any nation. The Charter presupposes that all nations will be free to give expression to their individual ideals. That is an important feature from Australia’s point of view.
Whatever may he decided by either the General Assembly or the Security Council, each nation will have the right to Heal exclusively with its own domestic affairs. I stress that fact because of the opinion held by many Australians who have not followed the discussions at San Francisco, and have not studied the Charter, that, under it, Australia will surrender some of its selfgoverning rights. lt is true that as a participating country Australia may be called upon to do certain things in the interests of the world at large. At the same time, the domestic policy of this country will in no way be encroached upon by other nations. This is shown by the fact that in the provision made for organizing the necessary armed forces to be employed against a belligerent nation, it is necessary to secure the approval of the parliaments and the governments of the countries from which the forces will be drawn. Therefore, not one Australian sailor, soldier or airman will be forced to go to any part of the world unless approval is given by the Australian Parliament. Possibly, it may be urged that the delay which will take place in organizing this force may be regarded as a weakness of the Charter. I mention that fact in order to emphasize that no justification exists for the fears entertained by some Australians that under the Charter Australia will surrender some of its sovereign rights. Great credit must be given . to the Australian delegation at the San Francisco conference for (insuring that the rights of the smaller nations will be fully respected. 1 regret that because some people do not agree politically with Australia’s delegates to San Francisco, there is a tendency to make political capital out of the decisions made et the conference. That attitude of mind does not assist the problem of devising a formula for the future peace of the world. Probably a majority of delegates to the conference were not of the same political faith as the Australian Government. Delegates came from many countries in which the outlook on life is different from what it is in this country. Some came from ultra-capitalistic countries, and others from more democratic lands. Certainly there was disputation as to whether this nation or that nation should be given an opportunity to express its views because of its anti-democratic tendencies; but these difficulties were smoothed out, and this Charter was drawn up. Whilst we may have our misgivings as to the future of mankind, at least a genuine attempt has been made to lay the foundation of an instrument which will bring peace to the world. Exception was taken by honorable senators opposite to the fact that the Charter includes provision for bringing about full employment in all countries. It has been suggested in some quarters that the Australian delegation persisted in its request for the insertion of this provision in the Charter with the object of overcoming the adverse vote by the people of this country at the recent constitution alteration referendum. That is a most paltry argument. What will the world be worth if, after the intense suffering and misery which the common people have endured, they are not to be given some hope for the future. After the last war we were told that there would be a new world fit for heroes to live in, and that never again would the people have to suffer the conditions which existed prior to the outbreak of that war. Unfortunately, those conditions did return. Only a few- months ago the people of Great Britain, refused to accept as their peace-time leader, their great war-time Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, to whom we in this chamber paid a tribute only yesterday - the man who inspired Great Britain and the rest of the world during the war, and to whom the world owes so much. Mr. Churchill was deposed as Prime Minister of Great Britain not because of ingratitude, but because the people of that country could not see in him, or in those who were associated with him, any prospect of attaining a new world. They know that he represented those interests which had kept the great bulk of the people of Great Britain on the lower rungs of the ladder; interests which believed that there should always be an army of unemployed, and that there should not be any improvement in the living conditions of the people. Although the British people appreciated the great work that Mr.
Churchill had done during the war, they said, “ You must stand aside. We want something real and we will put in your place representatives of a political party which believes in better economic conditions being provided throughout the world “. Nothing in this Charter will inspire the peoples of the world so much as the knowledge that signatory nations pledge themselves to bring about better economic conditions in the immediate future. The argument that Australia’s insistence upon the insertion in the Charter of the provision for full employment was a subterfuge to overcome the expressed wish of the people of this country, does no credit to those who propound it.
After listening to the speeches that have been made on this measure, and reading through this great document, I could not help thinking of the words “ Love thy neighbour as thyself “. Had that injunction been observed, the peoples of the world would have been saved from the carnage that has taken place generation after generation. I believe that there is a good deal in what Senator Herbert Hays said, namely, that we must have a change of heart. If this document is to prevail, and to lead us to a new civilization, there must be a change of heart amongst the peoples of the earth. I do not despair of that change taking place. When hostilities ceased a few weeks ago, thousands of people in the capital cities and throughout the land, visited their churches, possibly for the first time since the last day on which prayers were offered on behalf of the nation. I hope that they will do so again many times before the declaration of peace. If we can achieve that change of heart, and observe the precept, “ Love thy neighbour as thyself”, there will be every hope for an enduring world peace.
– What about our political neighbours?
– We have been very friendly in the course of this debate. Despite our differences of opinion we all support the principle of this measure which I am sure will be agreed to unanimously. However, I would not like to see a complete political truce. The Charter does not suggest that vital mat ters should not receive the fullest discussion. It provides for legitimate discussion amongst nations. There is tobe a General Assembly at which matters of world importance will be discussed. Nations must be able to go readily to the Security Council to secure a settlement of disputes. There will also be an International Court of Justice. There will be scope for legitimate discussion amongst nations as there is scope for political disputation in this country. I hope that this measure will meet with the wholehearted approval of the Senate, and that the Australian people who have served their country in time of war will also play an important part in ensuring world peace.
Debate (on motion by Senator Mattner) adjourned.
The following papers were presented : -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. -
No. 44 of 1945 - Commonwealth Temporary Clerks’ Association; and Federated Public Service Assistants Association.
No. 45 of 1945 - Amalgamated Engineering Union; and Federated Iron workers’ Association.
No. 46 of 1945 - Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. “ Australia First Movement “ Inquiry - Summary of Report of Commissioner (Mr. Justice Clyne) appointed under the National Security Regulations.
Customs Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1945, No. 125.
Japanese Atrocities and Breaches of the Rules of Warfare in the neighbourhood of the Territory of New Guinea and Papua - Summary of facts and findings from Report, prepared by Sir William Webb, Chairman, Australian War Crimes Com mission.
National Security Act -
National Security (Man Power) Regulations - Orders -
Control of pharmaceutical chemists - Revocation.
Dental profession control - Revocation.
Regulations - Statutory Rules 1945, Nos. 134, 135, 136.
Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Regulation - No. 2 of 1945 - (Cooperative Trading Societies Ordinance).
Senate adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 September 1945, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1945/19450913_senate_17_184/>.