Senate
4 March 1952

20^th Parliament · 1^st Session

SENATOR GORDON BROWN
ACCESSION OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND
QUESTION
- TEXTILES
QUESTION
- LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- SUGAR
QUESTION
- MYXOMATOSIS
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- PETROL
QUESTION
- TRADE
QUESTION
- POTATOES
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
QUESTION
- RICE
QUESTION
- NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- SULPHUR
PRINTING COMMITTEE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1952
- First Reading
PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1952
PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1952
INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1952
- Second Reading
MINISTERS OE STATE BILL .1952
- Second Reading
PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1952
- Second Reading
PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1952
- Second Reading
TREATY OF PEACE (JAPAN) BILL 1952
- Second Reading
ARTICLE I
ARTICLE 2
QUESTION
- ARTICLE 4
ADJOURNMENT
PAPERS

– The various States have issued textile labelling regulations, but they are not quite in conformity with those issued by the Commonwealth. Naturally, it is highly desirable that there should be uniform labelling, both for imported goods and for goods manufactured in Australia. 1 expect that a final conference between Commonwealth and State representatives will be held this month in order to achieve this measure of uniformity.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Did the Minister for Trade and Customs hear it announced during the 1 o’clock news session to-day that a recession in the textile industry in the United States of America had brought about some unemployment in that country? If so, will he obtain relevant information and present it to the Senate in order to show that any unemployment in the textile industry in Australia is due to a recession in that specific industry, and is not, as has been alleged, due to any action taken by this Government?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I did not hear the 1 o’clock news, but the point made by the honorable senator is well taken.

page 653

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the order of exemption No. 26 made in pursuance of the Banking Act of 1945, which appeared in the Commonwealth Gazette of the 21st February, 1952, has prevented (lie companies named in Group A of the Schedule from providing financial assistance to ex-servicemen who wish to enter ballots for blocks of land? Is the Minister aware that ex-servicemen will, unless his Government relaxes its control of credit in respect of land settlement, or makes special provision to assist exservicemen financially, be prevented from entering ballots for blocks of grazing land in pastoral leases known as Thurrulgoonia, Tinenburra and Noorama, soon to be opened for selection in the Cunnamulla district of Queensland?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am not familiar with the details of the order mentioned by the honorable senator, and I find it difficult to follow the purport of his question because I do not know the circumstances. The general direction which the Commonwealth Bank has issued to trading banks makes fairly liberal arrangements for the lending of money for the development of agricultural properties. The money made available under the War Service Land Settlement scheme has been appropriated by the Parliament in accordance with an arrangement entered into between the States and the Commonwealth.

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether, in view of the fact that about 1,400 exservicemen competed in a ballot for eleven blocks of land in New South Wales last month, the Government will endeavour to accelerate the rate of soldier settlement before it embarks on any extensive scheme to settle immigrants on the land.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I understand that ballots in respect of land for returned soldier settlement are conducted by the St.ite governments, the Australian Government having no direct authority in that matter. It is the policy of the Government not to interfere with the functions of the States. The obligations of the

TAXATION

Senator CHAMBERLAIN:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer request his colleague to take steps to rectify the unfair, position that citizens in receipt of superannuation payments, who have saved the Commonwealth large sums of money by themselves making provision for the payment of what are, in effect, age pensions, nevertheless are required to pay social services contributions, from which they cannot expect to derive any benefit?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The matter that the honorable senator has raised has been the subject of previous questions and of debate in the Parliament. It is true that persons in receipt of superannuation payments are required to pay income tax and social services contributions in respect of those payments, but, from, the point of view of taxation, such persons arc not in a different position from those who saved or invested money during their lifetime and now, in the latter years of their lives, are living upon their savings or upon income from their investments.

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

What existing Commonwealth Government loans have been issued in respect of which interest derived therefrom (ft) is completely free from income tax; or (&) is taxable at a rate or rates lower than normal rates of taxation ?

Senator SPOONER:

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

None, except war savings certificates and savings certificates in respect of which the increase in value is exempt from income tax.
1. Interest on Commonwealth loans el the face value of £10,000,000 is subject to income tax at rates not greater than 1930 rates. Interest on Commonwealth loans of the face value of £1,987,000,000 is subject to full Commonwealth income tax but a rebate of tax is allowed amounting to 2s. for each £1 of such interest included in a taxpayer’s taxable income.

page 654

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, is prompted by the suggestion that at an early dato the Parliament will be called upon to discuss the sugar agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland, and also by discussions that have taken place in the Senate about the inability of housewives in the southern States to obtain adequate supplies of sugar. I ask the Minister whether the Government will use its best endeavours to ensure that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited or the Queensland Sugar Board shall make available to people in the southern States ample quantities of refined sugar? At the present time, people in those States are buying unrefined sugar at the price applicable to refined sugar.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Commonwealth is in almost daily contact with the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited with a view to ensuring the equitable distribution of sufficient quantities of refined sugar to meet the requirements of this country. The company has done a magnificent job in relation to the distribution of refined sugar. There are certain physical difficulties which it has been beyond .the power of the Commonwealth and the company to overcome. One very serious handicap is a lack of refining facilities in Victoria. I assure the honorable senator that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited and the Commonwealth are leaving nothing undone that can be done to make adequate quantities of refined sugar available.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– When any new sugar agreement is being negotiated with the Queensland Government, will the Minister for Trade and Customs consider having Devonport and Burnie included with Hobart and Launceston in the list of ports to which supplies of sugar are delivered freight paid?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I should be glad if the honorable senator would make such representations to me as he considers to be pertinent to that matter.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Will the Minister ascertain from available records, or by some other means, how many sugar consuming industries, if any, are subsidiaries of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, and whether any such industries have suffered from a shortage of sugar in recent months?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I shall be very pleased to make the inquiries that have been suggested by the honorable senator.

page 655

QUESTION

MYXOMATOSIS

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, with the statement that towards the end of last year some myxomatosis virus was released to farmers in Western Australia with the object of assisting them to exterminate rabbits, which have plagued that State for a considerable number of years. The virus was released to those farmers after representations upon the matter had been made by honorable senators, including myself. So far, there is no evidence that the virus has destroyed any great number of rabbits in Western Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! What is the honorable senator’s question?

Senator SCOTT:

– In view of the fact that the myxomatosis virus that was released in Western Australia has, so far, had very little effect upon rabbits, compared with results that were obtained by the virus in Victoria last year, can the Minister inform the Senate whether the virus which was released in Western Australia was of the same strength as that which was released in the eastern States last year? If it was of the same strength, could the Minister advise the Senate if the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is carrying out any experiments in order to find and breed suitable insects to carry the disease from one rabbit to another? I specify rabbits here-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I have previously suggested that senators could couch their questions in concise language. Senator ‘Scott’s introduction to his question was entirely out of order. All that the honorable senator need have done in order to obtain the information that he desired was to ask his question. I request honorable senators, in asking their questions, only to seek information and not to attempt to make secondreading speeches. They should not give information and their questions should be framed in as concise a form as possible.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not in a position to give an answer to the question that was asked by Senator Scott. I suggest that he should refer that interesting subject to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, from whom, I am sure, he will receive the enlightenment that the question warrants.

– The Prime Minis ter, in his 1949 policy speech, made the following statement: -

Over a period of fiveyears we shall raise loans totalling £250,000,000, the interest and sinking fund on which will be provided out of the petrol tax. The amount to be raised and spent each year will be conditioned by the availability of men and materials. Its general administration will be under a National Works Council. The work will include feeder roads; soil conservation, the development of rural housing, embracing the construction of groups of workers’ homes.

Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say what progresshas been made in the raising of this loan, and what amounts have been made available to localgoverning bodies? Is it not a fact that as a result of the financial restrictions imposed by the Government, the amount of money available to local bodies has been reduced instead of being increased, with the result that many feeder roads are almost impassable ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I cannot say just how much money has been raised, nor exactly how it has been expended, but I shall obtain that information for the honorable senator.

page 659

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator O’BYRNE:

– On the 26th February I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation a question relating to the report that negotiations had been re-opened for a merger between Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines. I understand that the Minister has now received a reply to that question.

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– My colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, has informed me that an announcement on government policy concerning airlines will be made at the appropriate time.

page 659

QUESTION

SULPHUR

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

With reference to the reply given by the Minister in the House of Representatives on the19th February, 1952, in which he stated that Australia’s allocation of sulphur by the International Materials Conference for the six months ending June, 1952, is 58,200 long tons - (a) Does he mean that Australia will be able to import 58,200 long tons of sulphur during the period specified, or that Australia’s supply of sulphur, including locally-produced sulphur, will be 58,200 long tons; (b) if Australia’s total supply will amount to 58,200 long tons, how much of it will consist of imported sulphur?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answer : -

The allocation of 58,200 long tons of sulphur to Australia for the first six. months of 1952 is for crude sulphur, or brimstone, only.
There is no production of crude sulphur in Australia. Therefore, the whole of the allocation will require to be imported.
Sulphur bearing ores are also used in Australia and other countries for the production of sulphuric acid,but these are not subject to allocation by the International Materials Con ference.

First Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill he now read a first time.

This bill deals with the recent report that was made to the Parliament upon parliamentary salaries and allowances. Three other bills that relate also to that matter will be presented to the Senate. With the concurrence of honorable senators, I shall take the first three measures to the secondreading stage and shall make, on the last measure, a second-reading speech that will cover all of them. Honorable senators will be able, if they so desire, to debate each bill on the motion for its second reading and in committee, but it will save much repetition if, upon the fourth bill, I make a second-reading speech applicable to all of them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

page 660

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

page 660

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

page 660

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1952

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I should like to address myself to the report that was made on the matter by the committee, of inquiry which was appointed in November last with the following terms of reference : -

To inquire into and report upon -
1. The salaries and allowances payable to the Ministers of State of the Commonwealth in pursuance of the Ministers of State Act 1935-1951.
2. The allowances payable under the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1920-1947.
If it be reported that it is necessary or desirable to alter such salaries and allowances or any of them, then to recommend the nature and extent of the alterations that should be made.
Generally, to inquire into and report upon any other matters arising out of or affecting the premises which may come to your notice in the course of your inquiries, and which you may consider should be reported on.

I do not propose to traverse the whole of the field that has been covered in the report. Honorable senators will have read it and will no doubt recognize it as a scholarly document which results from the first impartial investigation of this matter since federation. As is usual in matters of this nature, there was a great deal of uninformed speculation prior to the release of the report, and since the date of its release there has been some criticism of the recommendations. What perhaps is more surprising is that the critics addressed themselves generally to the recommendations of the committee without permitting their readers the very stimulating mental exercise of studying the related reasons which prompted the committee to put forward such recommendations.

I should perhaps at this stage refer to the personnel of the committee which made such a sound report on a matter which is both complex and delicate. The chairman was the Honorable Mr. Justice H. S. Nicholas, formerly Chief Judge in Equity in New South Wales. The other members were Mr. H. E. Richardson, a very prominent business man, and Mr. H. W. Buckley, a well-known chartered accountant and company director. Honorable senators opposite will know that Messrs. Richardson and Buckley have, over a number of years, given very generously of their time and energies to various governments, and that these past services, together with their service as members of the committee of inquiry into parliamentary salaries and allowances have been given in a completely honorary capacity.

The committee of inquiry spent approximately three months investigating the facts and had before it very complete statistical data relating to conditions in Australia and elsewhere, and also details of the salaries and allowances paid to members of Parliament and Ministers in other Commonwealth countries and in the United States of America. The views of the. public and of representative public institutions were also solicited and very frank statements of the financial position of members and costs associated with their office of members of the Parliament were obtained.

A perusal of the committee’s report goes quite a long way towards correcting many of the misapprehensions which exist about the functions of members of Parliament. Honorable senators will not agree entirely with the findings of the committee. There are, without doubt, some ways in which we, as individuals, consider that the report could be improved upon. However, we would not all bp in agreement as to what would be improvements in the report. In order to investigate this question, the Government appointed an impartial tribunal which was completely removed from political interest and was afforded every assistance in order to enable it to establish the facts. Moreover, the committee approached the question objectively. There is, therefore, no reason for departing from its recommendations, however much we as individuals feel that some of them are not what we would have wished.

There are one or two matters to which I feel that I should address myself. The first of these relates to what has been generally described by critics as a “ taxfree allowance”. These allowances are referred to on pages 12 and 13 of the report from which I quote: -

We recommend that each Senator and each Representative receive an allowance of £1,750 per annum, an addition of £250 per annum to the allowance at present received; this sum to be liable to a statutory deduction in respect of the weekly contribution to the member’s retiring allowance fund and to income tax. We further recommend that each member receive an annual sum not liable to taxation or to statutory deduction which would supersede any deduction for expenses now made by the Commissioner of Taxation. In thecase of a senator we recommend that the sum payable bo £550 per annum. In order to determine the tax-free amount to be paid to a member of the House of Representatives we recommend that electorates be divided into live groups and that each member be paid the amount tax-free set out below, opposite the number of the group in which his electorate is included. The electorates included in each group are named in Appendix “ B “ infra. The classification of electorates into live groups is that adopted by the Commissioner for Taxation for purposes of assessment.

Honorable senators will be aware that over the past twenty years the Commissioner for Taxation has divided electorates of the House of Representatives into five groups and has allocated to each of these groups, and also to all honorable senators arbitrary amounts which senators and members of the House of Representatives could claim as deductions for tax purposes without affording proof of expenditure. The committee felt that these amounts should not be left to the Commissioner of Taxation to determine but should be provided for by statute. The extent to which the special allowances represent a reasonable amount may be gauged from the findings of the committee, and in this connexion I quote from page 11 of the report -

It will be seen that we recommend that a member be allowed a sum additional to the parliamentary allowance which is to be taxfree and not subject to any deduction, and which will supersede the amount previously deducted for expenses. We found that in a number of instances the amount available to a member or senator after taking account of the expenses necessarily or actually incurred in the performance of his duties was less than half his nominal salary and in some instances was less than the basic wage. This conclusion was reached after a line had been drawn between those expenses attributable to a household or business and those attributable exclusively to the duties of a Member of Parliament.

It will be evident that if the committee found that, in some cases, the amount at present available to members is less than the basic wage after paying expenses necessarily incurred in the execution of their duties then the electorate allowances recommended are modest. It is, perhaps, most unfortunate that reference was made to the fact that these allowances would be tax-free. In point of fact, the allowances which are payable under the authority of the Parliamentary Allowances Act are designed to recoup the outofpocket expenses of a senator or a representative. In other words, they are payments to the member in the form of trust moneys to be expended by him on electorate responsibilities, and therefore it could not be argued that they form part of his assessable income.

Many honorable senators will no doubt say that it would have been preferable to continue the existing practice so that, for example, the salary of an honorable senator would have been £2,300, from which he would have been entitled to claim a deduction for the expenses necessarily incurred in producing that income. Whilst this approach commends itself, in point of fact it would not remove this question of expenses from the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation, and in any case it is “ splitting a hair to assert that the giving of a salary of £1,750 with an expense allowance of £550 is in any way different from giving a salary of £2,300, from which £550 is an allowable deduction for taxation purposes. Australia is one of the last, if not the last, of the English-speaking countries to adopt this very sensible approach to the subject of reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses of members of Parliament.

I turn now to the matter of ministerial allowances. Honorable senators will have noted from a perusal of the report that the salaries paid to Ministers of the Crown at present are £300 less than the amount that was paid to them at federation, despite the enormous increase both in volume and complexity of their work. An interesting comparison relates to the increasing disparity between the salaries paid to permanent heads and those paid to Ministers. At federation, salaries paid to Ministers were approximately double those paid to permanent .heads, whereas at present the salary of only one Minister exceeds that of the permanent head of his department - the Prime Minister - the excess being £50 per annum. Honorable senators will know that all governments have been quick to do justice to permanent heads and to the Public Service generally.

There is no reason why the benefits that flow to the Public Service from arbitration, or from decisions of the Cabinet, should create unwarranted disparities between Ministers who are responsible for policy decisions and members of the service who are responsible for their execution.

Debate resumed from the 28th February (vide page SOS), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a bill to ratify the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which has already been signed by the plenipotentiaries of 49 nations, including our own, and Japan, and also to ratify the Protocol to the treaty, which has been signed by the plenipotentiaries of 27 nations, including our own, and Japan. The Opposition concedes at once that a Treaty of Peace with Japan is desirable. It concedes that such a treaty ought to be concluded as soon as possible. It acknowledges, too, that the terms of the treaty should not have their roots in feelings of hatred or revenge. There are good things in the treaty. It is good that it will put an end to the state of war. It is good, also, to find that Japan is to be punished severely. It is to be deprived of a great deal of territory which has been of great advantage to that country, and which was of incalculable value to Japan when it commenced its drive southwards in 1941. Under Article 11 Japan renounces all claim to Korea, Formosa, the Kurile Islands, the southern portion of Sakhalin and the adjacent islands, and many islands in the Pacific that it held under mandate from the League of Nations. What is of particular importance to Australia is that Japan renounces all claim to any part of the Antarctica area. Apparently this provision was included at the instance of Australia’s representatives at the San Francisco conference. Various other islands, also, are to be taken away from the jurisdiction and administration of Japan. Article 3 provides that Japan will support an application by the United States of America for trusteeship over the various mandated islands formerly held by Japan, including their territorial waters. That, of course, is a complete re-orientation of the position of Japan in the Pacific. It has the approval of the Opposition and, we imagine, the approval of all Australians. By Article 10, Japan renounces all claims to any territory in China.

Another feature that one must commend is that the treaty will put an end to the official occupation of Japan, requiring as it does that Australian occupation forces shall leave within 90 days from the conclusion of the treaty. At least we will be relieved of the expense of maintaining an occupation force. I am not to be taken as saying that I approve the non-occupation of Japan. I merely draw attention to the financial relief to Australia in that respect. There are, of course, other useful provisions in the treaty which will make for normal intercourse between countries in relation to international trade. The treaty deals with vital matters affecting such things as trade, fisheries, air navigation, copyrights and patents, contracts, negotiable instruments, insurance and re-insurance, all of which must undoubtedly be faced and for which provision must be made in a treaty of this kind. The provisions are reasonable and usual and are certainly not generally unfavorable to this country.

I do not propose to refer to the subject of reparations or to the complete freedom tr. engage in economic activities throughout the world and to enter freely into international trade that is accorded Japan under this treaty. I leave those aspects for criticism by other Opposition senators. The provision in the treaty that alarms the Opposition and has caused dismay and astonishment throughout Australia is contained in Article 5 (c), which reads -

The Allied Powers for their part recognise that Japan as a sovereign nation possesses the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence referred to in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and that Japan may voluntarily enter into collective security arrangements.

There is no provision in Article 5, or elsewhere throughout the treaty, that delimits the power of Japan to rearm in any of the important fields - the navy, army or air force. It is opportune for us to consider for a moment the Japanese nation with which we propose under this bill to enter into a treaty of peace. I say at once that if the Japanese have one outstanding characteristic it is their devotion to the service of their own interests to the exclusion of all others. I have merely to point to the vast advantages that have been gained by Japan down the years. It took part on our side, and on the side of the allies, in World War I. and although it rendered very little service to the cause of the allies - mainly ship escort service - its rewards were entirely out of proportion to those services. It came out of that conflict with control of the Carolines, the Marianas, the Marshalls and thousands of other islands dotted all over the Pacific. In short, Japan was on the side of the victors and it obtained more than a fair share of the spoils. After the outbreak of World War II. in 1939 Japan bided its time for more than two years, waiting to see which side was likely to be the victor, determining to come in on the. side which it gauged would enjoy the. fruits of victory, coldly and deliberately calculating where Japanese interests lay. There is no need for me to emphasize the horrible treachery with which Japan struck at Pearl Harbour in December, 1941, an act that was roundly condemned by the President of the United States of America and is still condemned at the bar of public opinion of the world. This is the nation with which we are about to enter into a treaty of peace. I do not propose to dwell upon the brutal inhumanity with which Japan conducted the war and treated its prisoners of war. I merely advert to it. This is the nation which made the. only assault that has ever been made on Australian soil, when it attacked Sydney and the Northern Territory and moved towards the coast of Northern Queensland and other parts of Australia.

Japan has an acute population problem. It has more than 87,000,000 people crowded in four tight little islands and its population is increasing at the rate of approximately 1,000,000 per annum. I regard Japan as I should regard a kettle that had been filled to the brim with water and set to boil. When it comes to the boil it must spill over. Those who study Japan and its problems, with its jurisdiction and control now limited to the four main islands, contained by the United States of

America in its immediate vicinity, with a terrific growth of population and unable to raise within its own provinces the commodities that it needs for the maintenance of its people, must inevitably come to the conclusion that Japan will spill over again as soon as the opportunity offers. Boom for expansion is Japan’s first great and urgent need. If it spills over, what more attractive prize is there than Australia, with its vast areas and open spaces, particularly in the north where the climate is most suitable for Japanese life and expansion? We have seen that the Japanese in the course of World War II. in their move southwards, had their eyes on this country. This is the prize they had in mind when they sought room for expansion. Many of the things that they need are to be found here. The second great need of Japan, as I see it, is for independent access to certain basic war materials - coal, iron, rubber and tin - which it largely obtained from China, Manchuria and Korea before World War II., but for which it must now look elsewhere. Its former sources of supply will continue to be cut off by the terms of this treaty. In Japan to-day the old war lords are being depurged and are taking a prominent part in national life. Those who were responsible for the militaristic aggression of Japan are now moving into key positions. One must face as a fact the industry, skill, determination and iron-clad discipline of the Japanese, not only in industry but also in war. We are dealing with a nation the policy of which has not changed one iota. The Japanese are not sorry for their conduct in the war. They are sorry only that their plans have been set back for, perhaps, two decades. The fact that there has been no basie change of heart on the ID art of the Japanese people or of those who control the destiny of Japan gives rise to a great fear of this treaty which the Opposition shares with very many people in this country. The Japanese were Hitler’s allies and it is interesting to note how well they absorbed Hitler’s theory of racial purity. Let me read from Mein Kampf, at page 275, something that Hitler had to say which, I submit, describes Japan’s outlook on the world to-day. Dealing with the need to preserve the racial purity of a people. Hitler wrote -

Everything on this earth oan he made into something better. Every defeat may bo made the foundation of a future victory. Every lost war may be the cause of a later resurgence. Every visitation of distress can give a new impetus to human energy. And out of every oppression those forces can develop which bring about a new re-birth of the national soul - provided always that the racial blood is kept pure.

That passage describes exactly the minds of those who will control the destinies of Japan in the near future. In the light of Japan’s record,, which I have briefly reviewed for the Senate, the Opposition believes it to be certain that, in the reasonably near future, there will bc a southward drive by the Japanese. I recall as a child being given to understand that the greatest menace to this country was from Japan, and so it proved to be. To-day, that same view is shared by every thinking man, woman and child in Australia. We all fear Japan and we have a real reason for that fear. In those circumstances it is very little wonder that the Government is frankly most unhappy about entering into this agreement without any delimitation of the militaristic activities of the Japanese. The Prime Minister said in his secondreading speech -

It has been made clear that the Government is by no means wholly satisfied with this treaty. . . . We in Australia - and this applies to the Government as well as to members of the Opposition and. I think, the great majority of the Australian people - cannot avoid some doubts at the prospect of Japan being restored to the family of nations without certain controls over its conduct in the future. Wo are not convinced that democracy has taken firm root in Japan. We are not sure that the Japanese can be fully trusted to steer a course in the future away from the aggressive military and economic policies that have threatened our very existence in the past.

– Yes. The treaty completely disregards the instrument of surrender - the ultimatum delivered by the three Great Powers and accepted by Japan. It is also a complete repudiation of the. agreement which the eleven nations that were represented on the Far Eastern Commission made not only with Japan but also with each other. Under that agreement Japan was not to engage in industries that would further its war potential. Japan was to be disarmed and to remain disarmed. Extraordinarily enough, that agreement still stands. It is not cancelled by this treaty of peace. That is a most untidy position. The eleven nations agreed that Japan was to be disarmed and was to remain disarmed. Now those same nations are joining with 37 other nations in a treaty of peace with Japan which provides for the unlimited rearmament of that country. Surely there should at least be some reference to the agreement between Japan and the countries represented on the Far Eastern Commission. If the terms of that agreement are to be varied, that should be made clear in the treaty, but no reference is made to the matter at all. The document that we are now considering is also contrary to the conditions agreed to by representatives of British Commonwealth countries in the very precincts of this building in 1947. That conference agreed that Japan should be contained and should be kept disarmed.

The Government cites the Pacific security pact that is now being entered into between the United States of America, New Zealand and Australia hs the answer to critics of the Japanese peace treaty. We are told that we can accept the treaty without any qualms because we shall have the might of the United States of America behind us should the need arise. I submit that the Pacific pact will alter our present position very little indeed. It is a useful document, but it does not pledge the Pui ted States of America to rush to our aid if we are attacked. Article 4 states -

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would lie dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger. . .

– It contains in writing evidence of the good relations that exist between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America. Anything that furthers amicable relations between this country and America is valuable. I am speaking, of course, from the viewpoint of Australia. The Government hopes that a rearmed Japan will help to stein the tide of rising communism, but there is no certainty of that. Japan may join with Communist Russia and China, and embark on a new rampage throughout the Pacific. Thu Attorney-General, when introducing this measure, frankly acknowledged that we could have no assurance that that would not take place. The leader of the Communist party in Japan was reported in the Australian press last week to have said that he welcomed the Japanese pence treaty because under it the reactionaries would again be in control, and would re-establish a police state, and promote military aggression. Their actions, bcsaid, would drive many Japanese to communism and would provide many Japanese recruits for the Communist party.

– - Australia should have given a lead.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree with Senator Grant. I remind the Senate that at one time Australia’s voice counted for something in the United Nations, and its viewpoint was regarded with respect. The primary duty of an Australian Government is to ensure the security of this country. All else depends upon the faithful performance of that duty. The duty of the Australian Government, faced with this position, was <at all costs to insist upon the delimitation of Japanese rearmament, even if Australia were the only nation represented at the conference that contended for it.

I should like the Minister to tell us, when he replies, whether the Australian plenipotentiaries who were at San Francisco last September knew of the pact between Japan and America, or whether it was kept secret. If they did know of it, they had a complete answer to the argument that Japan should be permitted to rearm, because the Americans were leaving the country, and we could not impinge upon the sovereignty of Japan when we had permitted it again to become a sovereign power. The truth is that, under the security pact between Japan and America, Japan itself will be occupied by American troops for so long as, in the opinion of both Japan and America, it is necessary for those troops to stay there. That means the opinion of America alone. “When the San Francisco conference was held, the Americans proposed, not to get out of Japan but to stay there. They were making n treaty with the Japanese under which they would be permitted to remain in Japan. The Japanese were prepared to concede that Japan should not rearm. In their very constitution, they abnegate war and anything connected with it. They say that never again shall they arm or be at war. If Australia had fought at San Francisco as it should have fought, probably it would have come out of that conference with the support of the great majority of the nations, all of which, as the Minister told us in his second-reading speech, are as uneasy about this treaty, owing to the lack of limitation of Japanese rearmament, as is the Australian Government. Those nations wanted a lead. What Australia wanted was there for the asking and the fighting for.

Senator Maher:

– If Russia were to attack in Europe and if Japan were left undefended, who would hold the fort in what is called the Far East?

Senator McKENNA:

– Let me make it perfectly clear that the Australian Labour party does not propose that Japan shall be undefended. We have no objection to the Japanese being permitted to reach a stage at which they can defend themselves, but we have a very vital objection to their being permitted to build aircraft carriers, long-range aircraft and long-range submarines, or to pile up atomic weapons. We say that, at the San Francisco conference, the representatives of the Australian Government should have disagreed with everybody else on earth rather than agree to unlimited Japanese rearmament. What harm would have been done if Australia had stood alone and adopted that attitude ? What harm would have come from delay? A nation may ratify the treaty and bring it into force between itself and Japan at any time within three years. Was not it worth while to fight for the insertion in the treaty of a clause delimiting Japanese rearmament, when, as I have proved, it was there for the obtaining? The United States of America, under its pact with Japan, has the advantage of a provision of that kind, but the other 47 nations have not. If Japan engages in offensive rearmament, those nations will not be able to raise the matter in the councils of the United Nations as a breach of an obligation to them. Only the United States of America will be able to do that, and we may see the da,y when it is not prepared to do so.

Say, first, that it is a just treaty; secondly, that the ratification of the treaty will ensure in every respect the security of Australia; and thirdly, that we have to ratify it, whether we like it or not.

For a long time, I, like many other Australians, was somewhat perturbed about the nature of the treaty that we should make ultimately with Japan. Like many Australians, I harbour the very strongest feelings about the Japanese. On many occasions, like others of my fellow countrymen, I have felt that nothing could be too bad for that barbarous race. At various times since the war with Japan began, 1 have felt that we should conclude a revengeful peace with the Japanese. I want to make it perfectly clear that in regard to Japan I have felt in the same way as everybody else. But when I come to discuss a peace treaty with Japan, I have to ask myself whether I am prepared to consider it subjectively or objectively. I have to ask whether I should be justified in allowing my personal feelings towards the Japanese to influence me in my consideration of a peace treaty. I have come to the conclusion that I must regard the matter entirely objectively, and that my personal feelings do not matter at all.

I have said that this treaty is a just treaty. By a “ just treaty “ I mean one under which both parties consider that, substantially, justice has been done. History contains hundreds of cases in which harsh treaties have provoked new wars. For thousands of years mankind has fought, and signed peace treaties that were peace treaties in name only and which have provoked further wars. During a war between the ancient Romans and the tribe of Samnites Herennius, the leader of the Samnites surrounded the Romans. They surrendered and he sent a message to his father, the leader of the tribe, asking what he would do with them. The father sent a message to Herennins telling him to kill all the Romans. When Herennius received the message he thought that there must be a mistake so he communicated with his father again. His father then sent him another message which told him to release all the Romans with honour. He thought that his father must be a little mad and, therefore, he did neither. The Romans did not return to Rome “with their shields or upon them “. He divested them of their arms and they returned in disgrace to Rome without them. The Romans never forgot that and, in due course, returned and killed every member of the tribe of Samnites.

For thousands of years this problem has been before mankind: what sort of treaty should we make? Should it be a harsh treaty which will provoke a further war or a just treaty which can be signed by both parties with a feeling that justice has been done? In the treaty which was signed after the Franco-Prussian war the Germans imposed harsh conditions, and the French did not forget them. In 19.19, when the Treaty of Versailles was prepared, the French imposed harsh conditions on Germany, and the Germans did not forget those conditions. Oan any honorable senator deny that the Treaty of Versailles paved the way for World War II? Is it not time that we changed our attitude in regard to so-called peace treaties? In this generation a country that commits an act of unprovoked aggression is named as an international criminal. Is not the nation that endeavours to force a harsh treaty of peace on another nation equally as culpable as that which commits an act of unprovoked aggression?

Senator Hendrickson:

– The honorable senator’s remarks will not assist the recruiting drive.

Senator VINCENT:

– I have done my share in the recruiting drive. In order to preserve the peace a treaty must provide justice for both parties. I do not rely only on history to support my argument that this is a just treaty. Each of about 47 nations which have ratified or are about to ratify it has accepted the proposition that this is a just and proper treaty. The only nations which have not accepted it as such a treaty are Russia, which contends that the terms are not harsh enough, and India which contends that they are too harsh. The United States of America and Great Britain, the most important of the nations concerned in the treaty, for obvious reasons, have mutually agreed on its terms. Japan has accepted it as a just treaty.

The Leader of the Opposition alleged I hat the United States of America had dominated the negotiations in connexion with the. treaty. I suggest that that is not a fact. Great Britain played as great a part in the drafting of the treaty as the United States of America did. Mr. Kenneth Younger, who was at one time the Under-Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain, was one of the representatives who signed on behalf of Great Britain the treaty that we ure discussing. On the 26th November, 1951, as a private member of the House of Commons he said -

I would like to take up the honorable gentleman on the point he makes about our not having had much to do with the drawing up of the Treaty. As he probably knows, the linn I draft was compiled from two drafts which were compared with each other, one produced by us and the other by the United Slates. 1 think the honorable gentleman will find thai, the Treaty is the result quite a= much “f our draft as of that nf the United Stales.

Those words were spoken by a gentleman who. of his own knowledge, knew who had prepared the draft.

The Leader of the Opposition has implied that Great Britain and the Dominions did not desire the treaty to be framed in its present terms. In other words, he has contended that Great Britain was not prepared to allow Japan to rearm. A speech which was made by Mr. Herbert Morrison in the House of Commons sets out very plainly the view of Great Britain in regard to the rearmament of Japan. In the report of the parliamentary debates of the House of Commons dated the 26th November, 1951, the following statement by Mr. Morrison appeared: -

In conclusion, I would say that, broadly speaking, what we had to decide, was whether tin’s should be a harsh treaty, one which imposed restrictions, severe conditions, penaltics, post-treaty control; or whether it should he what we call a liberal treaty which is not a bad word in this case - with a small “ 1 “. I admit it is a risk; one cannot be certain. There are three possible courses for the future of Japan One is as a Parliamentary democracy. I hope that will be the case. That is. social progress, free trade unions, a modern Labour movement, a modern Co-operative movement - all these latest improvements in society. It could go Fascist; it could go Communist, quite easily.

I believe the best bet - and it cannot be any more than the best bet; and I am not asking anybody to bet about it, because I do not believe in gambling - is that she is most likely to come in with the free democracies and the more peaceful nations if we say to Japan, “ Come into the club. If you come into the club there are certain rules about ibo club which you will have to accept, and you will’ understand them “. But if we say to Japan, “ Yes, we will give you peace but we will give it only subject to irksome conditions, penalties and fines and post-Treaty controls and what not”, then I believe that Japan, and almost any other country of the world in similar circumstances, would dodge those conditions as soon as she possibly could.

I believe that, fundamentally, the best chance of real peace and progress is upon the lines of this Treaty.

That is the view of Mr. Herbert Morrison who was the Foreign Minister in the Government of the United Kingdom, so it is nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition to state that Great Britain was not in favour of the rearmament of Japan. Mr. Morrison has given the lie to that proposition. Not only are the United States of America and Great Britain in favour of this treaty, and not only do they regard it as just, but about 47 other nations also regard it in that way. Many of them fought Japan and some of them are closer to Japan than Australia is. Canada is much closer to Japan geographically than is Australia, and it has ratified the treaty which it regards as just. If we do not accept the proposition that this is a just treaty we must reject it al together.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that the Communists in Japan would like to have the treaty ratified. I join issue with the Leader of the Opposition on that matter. Every one of the 22 Communists in the Japanese Parliament voted against the treaty. Three hundred and seven votes were cast in favour of the treaty in the Japanese Parliament and 47 against it. The votes in favour of the treaty comprised those of 222 Liberal members, 48 Democrat members, 24 Rightist Socialist members, three Social Democrat members, seven

Farm Co-operative members, one Kozei Club member and two Independent members. The votes against the treaty were cast by three People’s Democrats, two Independent members, sixteen Leftist Socialists, 22 Communists, and four Labour Farmers. As I have said, a total of 307 votes were cast in favour of the treaty while 47 were cast against it, including the votes of 22 Communists. Yet the Leader of the Opposition stated that the Japanese Communists were in favour of the treaty. I have endeavoured to show that the United States of America, Great Britain and the other nations concerned regard this as a perfectly fair and just treaty.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Just to whom?

Senator VINCENT:

– Just to both sides. It might be pertinent to inquire into the views of Great Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands with respect to the rearmament of Germany. All those countries are very close to Germany geographically and every one of them has recently signed an agreement for the formation of a huge European army more than 25 per cent. of whose personnel will be German.

Remembering (lie countless bitter lessons of history, the tragedy of Versailles, that 47 countries have already ratified, or have expressed their intention to ratify the treaty, and that Russia is the only country opposed to it, are we to ally ourselves with Russia and refuse to ratify it? Are we to perpetuate the mistakes of history? Surely this is the best treaty that could be signed in order to maintain friendship. This is the first condition precedent in respect to ratification, and it is one reason why I support that course.

Another equally important reason why I support ratification is that it will guarantee real security to Australia. Many people in this country are asking, quite rightly, how the ratification of the treaty will provide security to Australia. The opponents of ratification have, carefully avoided the issue. In point of fact, our security will be guaranteed by the United States of America by means of two very important international agreements, namely the Pacific pact and the security treaty between the United States of America and Japan. The Leader of the Opposition has attempted to throw cold water on the Pacific pact by stating that America would be. denied the right to assist Australia. Article 4 of that pact provides that, in certain circumstances, the United States of America shall assist Australia “ in accordance with its constitutional processes “. Those words mean merely that the United States of America binds itself to assist Australia if Australia is subjected to an unprovoked attack. The phrase “ in accordance with constitutional processes”, means no more or less than that the Americans must obey their own constitution. Indeed, the United States of America did help us during World War II., in accordance with its constitutional processes. It is quite idle for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that those words would exercise restraint in relation to the provision of assistance to Australia. If the United States of America wished to declare war on any country in pursuance of the terms of the Pacific pact it would have to do so having regard to its constitutional processes. I shall not deal at length with the provisions of the Pacific pact, because that subject will be debated fully in this chamber. But can honorable senators opposite suggest a better form of security for Australia than the security that that pact provides? Do they suggest that any other country could provide for our security to the degree that the United States of America can guarantee it? I should like honorable senators opposite to address themselves to this aspect of the matter.

The second international agreement to which I have referred, the treaty between the United States of America and Japan, is contingent upon the treaty of peace with Japan coming into force. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the treaty might last only for such time as the United States of America does not adopt an isolationist attitude. I point out that that observation applies equally to any other treaty that that country enters into. It is not relevant to the question of whether we should or should not ratify the treaty. The following are some of the provisions of the security treaty between the United States of America and Japan: -

page 675

ARTICLE I

Japan grants, and the United States ot America accepts the right upon the coming into force of tho Treaty of Peace and of this Treaty, to dispose United States land, air and sca forces in and about Japan. Such forces may be utilised to contribute to the main tenance of international peace and security in the Ear East and to the security of Japan against armed attack from without, including assistance given at the express request of the Japanese Government to put down large-scale internal riots and disturbances in Japan, caused through instigation or intervention by an outside Power or Powers.

page 675

ARTICLE 2

During the exercise of the right referred to in Article 1, Japan will not grant, without tile prior consent of the United States of America, any bases or any rights, powers or authority whatsoever, in or relating to bases m the right of garrison or of maneuver, or transit of ground, air or naval forces to any third power.

page 675

QUESTION

ARTICLE 4

This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinion of the Governments of the United States of America and of Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan area.

Surely an international agreement that gives the United States of America the right to maintain forces in Japan in perpetuity must guarantee the security of the Pacific, and therefore the security of Australia. I believe the international agreements that I have mentioned are supplementary to the proposed Treaty of Peace with Japan, and should be read in conjunction with it. Taking the three documents as a whole, I do not believe that any one could deny that Australia’s future security will be assured by the United States of America, the only country whose assurances are worth more than a scrap of paper.

What would be the position if we did not ratify the treaty? Although the. Leader of the Opposition stated initially that a quick peace was a very good thing, he subsequently suggested that we should postpone ratification of the treaty. We must remember that Japan has already ratified the treaty, and that forty-eight other nations have either ratified it or are about to ratify it. If we do not ratify the treaty we shall continue to be in a state of war with Japan. If we were to decide that we should not ratify it at this stage, but should negotiate with Japan for the inclusion of harsher terms, and subsequently Japan refused to negotiate with us, would we have to send an armed force into Japan in order to force the Japanese to agree to harsher terms? Could we obtain the assistance of any other country for that purpose? Is it likely that Japan would agree to our demands, knowing that the rest of the free world had ratified the treaty? Those factors are all pertinent to the major issue. I do not, believe that Australia could ever make Japan agree to harsher terms than those of the treaty. Nothing that we could do would force Japan to agree to the inclusion of harsher terms. Therefore, we would be standing alone. We would certainly incur the permanent hatred of Japan and provoke a great deal of mirth amongst the free nations of the world. Ultimately we should be forced to accept a treaty in the form of the present treaty.

I shall now address myself to the major propositions of the Leader of the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite have claimed that the treaty is at variance with the policies that were agreed upon originally by the Far Eastern Commission. I have before me the terms of the basic post-surrender policy for Japan which was adopted by the 62nd meeting of the Far Eastern Commission on the 19th June, 1947. The following is an extract from that policy : -

The ultimate objectives in relation to Japan, to which policies for the post-surrender period for Japan should conform are: -
1. To insure that Japan will not again become a menace to the peace and security of the world.
1. To bring about the earliest possible establishment of a democratic and peaceful government which will carry out its international responsibilities, respect the rights of other States, and support the objectives of the United Nations. Such government in Japan should be established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.
These objectives will be achieved by the following principal means: -
1. Japan’s sovereignty will bc limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor outlying islands as may be determined.
1. Japan will be completely disarmed and demilitarized. The authority of the militarists and the influence of militarism will be totally eliminated. All institutions expressive of the spirit of militarism and aggressions will be vigorously suppressed.

Both the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Dr. Evatt) and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber have attacked the proposed treaty because its terms are at variance with the terms of the post-surrender policy that was formulated by the Far Eastern Commission. By a curious coincidence, that argument has been used by Russia also in attacking the treaty. A similar line of approach was adopted by Mr. Gromyko who represented Russia at the San-Francisco Conference in September, 1951, when he is reported to have stated -

This draft likewise contradicts the decisions of the Far Eastern Commission which, as far back as 1947 in the aforementioned documents, “Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan”, set forth the task of ‘ completing the physical and spiritual demilitarization of Japan by measures, including total disarmament, economic reform designed to deprive Japan of the power to make war, elimination of militaristic influences, and stern justice to war criminals and requiring a period of strict control “.

Sitting suspended from 5.J/5 to 8 p.m.

Senator VINCENT:

– When the sitting was suspended I was replying to the arguments that were advanced by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon against the ratification of the treaty. It is true that the policy enunciated by the Far Eastern Commission, to which the honorable senator referred, was based on a complete demilitarization of Japan during the immediate post-war period. The Leader of the Opposition argued that the treaty with Japan is out of order because it is at variance with that policy. When the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Dr. Evatt) referred to the policy of the commission in relation to the treaty he said -

It is contrary to international justice for ns to become a party to the tearing up of these decisions.

The decisions to which the right honorable gentleman referred were the decisions of the Far Eastern Commission. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) submitted a similar argument as a reason why the treaty should not be ratified. I mentioned earlier in passing that at the San Francisco conference in September, 195 1, Mr. Gromyko had also submitted that argument as one of his major reasons why the Japanese peace treaty should not be signed. The argument is perfectly good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. It is quite true that the commission laid down a policy with respect, to the disarmament of Japan; but it is not true to say that that policy was ever intended to be incorporated in any peace treaty. The policy of the commission was expressly intended, and it was so accepted by the nations concerned, to be at all times subject to a final peace treaty. As a matter of fact, to the Far Eastern Commission’s post-surrender policy which was stated in a paper dated the 19th June, 1947, to which I have already referred, a condition was added by Australia which was subsequently accepted by the nations concerned. The condition read as follows : -

The policies laid down in this paper ure subject to and without prejudice to discussion* which will take place during the negotiation of the peace treaty with Japan and the provisions of the peace treaty with Japan.

In other words the condition laid down that the policies of the Far Eastern Commission were of a. temporary nature and were subject at all times to the decisions of the peace treaty and the policies laid down in the treaty. I submit that both Mr. Gromyko and the Leader of the Opposition are quite wrong in suggesting that we should adhere to the policies of the commission because when the present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives was Minister for External Affairs, he, with the consent of the other nations concerned, added the condition which I have just read which makes the decisions of the commission such as to be without prejudice to the peace treaty. I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber should submit an argument which is so legally fallacious, without foundation and devoid of reality.

Dic Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the Labour party is prepared to accept the proposition, that Japan should be entitled to rearm for defensive purposes. I should be most interested to hear from the authorities on military armaments among the members of the Opposition just what is meant by defensive rearmament. Long-range bombers, which he condemned, are just, as much defensive as offensive armaments. We have long range bombers for the protection of Australia and for no other purpose. In these days of modern wartare it is unreal to talk about defensive or offensive armaments. There is no distinction between the two.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Tell us something about the treaty.

Senator VINCENT:

– The party to which Senator Sandford belongs agrees to the defensive rearmament of Japan. Every soldier knows that when war comes to his country attack or offence is the only means of defence. That principle has been demonstrated for the last two thousand years, but apparently the Labour party is not yet aware of it. The Opposition must realize that the defensive rearmament of Japan would cover all forms of armament, even the atomic bomb.

The final and most important proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition in support of non-ratification of the treaty, was that the present treaty would revive Japanese militarism and thereby prove a menace to the security of the Pacific. The truth of both elements of that proposition must be established by honorable senators opposite. They must establish that this treaty will not only revive Japanese militarism but will also menace the security of Australia and of the whole of the Pacific area. I am prepared to admit that any country that has large armed forces, and I do not exclude countries such as the United States of America, Canada and India, constitutes a menace to the security of other countries. That, however, is not the point. What we have to ask ourselves is whether a rearmed Japan will constitute n real menace to the security of Australia.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Ask that question of 80 per cent, of the Australian people.

Senator VINCENT:

– The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is reported to have said that the Labour movement of Australia, both political and industrial, is strongly opposed to the proposal that Japan should be permitted to rearm.

Senator Sandford:

– There are others besides the members of the Labour party who think likewise.

Senator VINCENT:

– That is so; undoubtedly that view is shared by the people of Russia. At the San Francisco conference in September 1951, Mr. Gromyko used a similar argument to that used by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber in criticism, of this treaty. I shall read Mr. Gromyko’s words in order to show that they are on all fours with the proposition that has been submitted by the Opposition in this Parliament. Mr Gromyko is reported to have said -

The draft does not contain any guarantees against the restoration of Japanese militarism, against the conversion of Japan into an aggressive State. The draft does not contain any guarantees for the security of the countries which suffered from the aggression of militarist Japan. The draft creates the conditions for a revival of Japanese militarism and the danger that Japanese aggression will recur.

The question whether Japan can rearm, is debatable. I do not know where it could obtain the necessary steel land other commodities for that purpose, except from some of the allied nations. The argument that was advanced by the Leader of the Opposition can be answered by the statement that irrespective of the conditions of the peace treaty Japan will eventually rearm. During the last 2,000 years nations which have been subjected to harsh peace treaties have in due course rearmed. We have seen nations in those circumstances rearm in our own time. I instance the rearmament of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. Let us be realistic about this matter.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Then why have a peace treaty?

Senator VINCENT:

– Japan will undoubtedly rearm either with or without, the consent of Australia and irrespective of any controls that Australia may impose upon it. If we incur the everlasting hatred of the Japanese by means of a harsh treaty, and if we encourage them to nourish feelings of revenge against us, it is more likely that they will use, their arms against us rather than in our support, tike the British Socialist leader. Mr. Herbert Morrison, I believe that this treaty is fundamentally the best chance of real peace and progress. I need not remind honorable senators opposite that Mr. Herbert Morrison, who has had more experience of foreign policy than has any honorable senator in this chamber, ala:] happens to be a member of the political party to which Opposition senators adhere so faithfully.

Finally, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he has very conveniently overlooked the most important factor that we have a guarantee of security from the Pui ted States of America which is contained in the all-important documents to which I have already referred - the Pacific pact and the security treaty between Japan and the United States of America. No one can deny that under those two international agreements, which are in a sense supplementary to this treaty, Australia has complete security against acts of aggression by any nation. One can only conclude therefore that the Opposition’s arguments on this measure are specious, devoid of reality, and based on party political considerations only. Honorable senators opposite, are attempting to frighten the people in the hope of securing votes. The Australian Labour party is the only political party in the English-speaking democracies that has attempted to oppose, the ratification of this treaty. Honorable senators opposite should be proud of that record ! I share the feelings of many members of this Parliament and of many people outside the Parliament, towards the Japanese. As I said this afternoon, I have a deep personal feeling of hatred for the barbarism of the Japanese race, but I should be neglecting my duty if I were to permit my personal feelings to influence my consideration of this important problem. I have endeavoured to be objective.. I may have failed to !>< so.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The honorable senator is trying to “ square off “ with his conscience.

Senator VINCENT:

– I am trying to obey the dictates of my conscience. Any one who allows his own personal feelings to colour his judgment in a matter of vital national importance such as this is does an injustice to himself and to his country. As I have said, the two vital conditions that must be complied with before we can agree to ratify this treaty have been fulfilled. The first condition is that it should be a just treaty, and by “ just “, I mean just to both parties. I think I have shown that the treaty complies with that prerequisite. Secondly, the treaty should not be prejudicial to our own security. That, too, I have established. Therefore I believe that the treaty should be ratified. I congratulate the Government upon having brought to finality the difficult negotiations that this treaty has involved. “With all my heart. I support the bill.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– When we are. asked to agree to ratify the Japanese peace treaty, we are for all practical purposes, being asked to allow history to repeat itself. Six years after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the very arguments that we have heard used to-day in support of the ratification of this treaty, were being used in Europe in favour of permitting Germany to rearm ; and Germany did rearm. In those days, the peoples of the allied nations were told that Germany should bo rearmed as a bulwark against Russia, but what happened? Russia took the side of the Allies. To-day we are being told that Japan should be rearmed to provide a bulwark against Russia. Our top level advisers on international affairs apparently expect us to accept, ex cathedra. certain pronouncements on foreign policy one day, and completely contradictory pronouncements the next. Consequently we are forced to rely on our own judgment, and my judgment is similar to that of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). 1 believe that a rearmed Japan will be a much greater menace to Australia than a disarmed Japan. Admittedly there is an element of risk either way, but that cannot be eliminated. I put it to the Senate and to the people of Australia that Japan will be a far greater menace to Australia in the future than it has ever been in the past. Let us recall some of the authoritative pronouncements on allied policy towards Japan that have been made over the years. The Potsdam Agreement of 1945 provided -

There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence nf those who have received and misled the Japanese people into embarking on world conquest, for Ave insist that a new order for peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

There were no reservations or qualifications and no loophole for a. change of front. The statement was dogmatic. At the end of 1946, General MacArthur said -

No Japanese Army. Navy or Air Force will ever l«; authorized. No rights of belligerency will ever be conferred on any Japanese force. . . . These sub-human barbarians will never again raise their heads among civilised nations.

As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, Japan’s renunciation of war as an instrument of foreign policy was actually written into the Japanese constitution in 1947. The relevant provision states -

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as the sovereign right of the nation and threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph a land, sca and air force, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the State will not be recognised.

Now the American imperialists say that that must be repealed. What does the peace treaty mean? Briefly, it provides for unrestricted Japanese rearmament, unlimited expansion of the Japanese Navy and Air Force, full development of Japan’s ship-building industry, unlimited trade expansion, most-favoured-nation treatment in relation to trade and hence a threat to Australian manufacturers, remilitarization of Japan, and, finally, inadequate compensation for former prisoners of war who were in the hands of the Japanese. The treaty was signed without the approval of

China and Russia. both of which supported the Allies in World War II., and in contradiction of the Cairo, Yalta and Potsdam agreements, as well as the policy of the United Nations. I join issue with Senator Vincent who claimed that this treaty did not constitute a threat to Australia’s security. There will never be peace in this world under capitalistic governments. Peace will come only under Labour governments which are directly responsible to the workers who make all the sacrifices on the battlefield and who in the ultimate analysis pay for all wars. We shall never have complete security for Australia, or a peace treaty that will do justice to this country, until Labour has been restored to office. The Minister said in his second-reading speech -

United States troops will continue to have the use of military bases in Japan itself, and will remain for a period, at present undetermined, in effective occupation and control of many of Japan’s island territories. The presence of United States troops in Japan will bc in accord with the United States-Japan Security Treaty, signed on the Sth September.

That is the substance of Article 6 of the treaty. In considering the work of the United Nations surely I am entitled to assume that some weight can be placed upon the opinions of Professor W. B. Crocker, Professor of International Relationships at the Australian National University, who delivered the Second Royal Memorial Lecture at Melbourne on the 28th November, 1951. The gathering was presided over by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir John Latham. Professor Crocker, I remind the Senate, assisted the present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Dr. Evatt) and others to establish the United Nations, and is well qualified to speak on the subject. He said -

In short, international organisation as represented by the United Nations system is not different in principle from the League system. The dominance of England and France in the League has given way to the dominance of the United States of America in the United Nations’; Latin America and Asia count for more just as Europe counts for less; the frame of mind has been more serious and more elated in the United Nations, but also cruder and hastier; as for the system itself, it is the League system amplified with modern loud-speakers.

In effect, lie said that, for all practical purposes, the United Nations organization is an organization of the United States of America. Discussing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the professor said -

In t1/ North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the body on which the security of the West now depends, the United States predominates, just as it predominates in the United Nations Organization.

A few days ago exception was taken in this chamber to a statement that I had made, but Professor Crocker, who was present when the United Nations organization was being established, says much more emphatically and convincingly than I could do, that the soldiers in Korea are fighting for American imperialism.

The purpose of Article 6 of the treaty, as was pointed out by Senator McKenna, is to set up an American military base in Japan. The treaty has been signed by -19 nations, but the military base will l»e controlled by America, just as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which was set up under the United Nations, is controlled by the United States of America, which put in 33.46 per cent, of the capital. When Senator Vincent supports this treaty he is supporting something which is antiAustralian and anti-British, and I make that statement without any desire to be offensive to him. His attitude, in effect, is that Australia is something less than the United States of America. When Australia’s representative, without any mandate from this Parliament, signed the treaty, we handed Japan over to the American financiers and capitalists who control the Government nf the United States of America. They are interested in developing countries like Japan where there is cheap slave lb bour which can be used in competition with more highly paid labour in Australia and in America. The present Australian Government is prepared to ignore British policy and tradition, and become a “yes “ government for the convenience of capitalists in America who control the Government of that country.

Senator Wedgwood:

– That is the Russian line.

Senator CAMERON:

– I ask honorable senators to examine the evidence impartially. The documents are available for perusal. Honorable senators who base their opinions on statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) are not using their own judgment; they are merely accepting as correct the statements of others when, in point of fact, those statements are not correct. If I can be proved wrong, I am prepared to admit my error, but I am disposed to accept the statement of Professor Crocker rather than the statements of the Prime Minister. I cannot imagine that the professor would make such a statement in the University of Melbourne unless he was able to prove what he said. Honorable senators opposite base their reasoning on what they are told by Ministers, but I base my reasoning on facts.

I quote from paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the treaty as follows : -

Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with » view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by makins: available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Towers in question. Such arrangement shall avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on other Allied Powers, and, where the manufacturing of raw materials is called for. they shall be supplied by the Allied Powers, in question, so as not to throw any foreign exchange burden upon Japan.

War damage is to be repaired by cheap Japanese labour for the profit of American capitalists who have invested money in Japan, and this is to be done in preference to employing more highly paid labour in other countries. Thus, the treaty has been designed to advance the interests, and strengthen the power and prestige of American financiers and capitalists. It was not designed to promote peace. Under present conditions, the capitalist economy cannot be maintained except by preparing for war, or by war itself. Without that, there would be unemployment on such a scale that governments could not cope with it. A noted American economist, speaking in March, 1949, said that there would be an economic crisis in 1953, and that the only thing that was keeping the American economy going was preparation for war. If there were no war preparations there would be an unemployment problem worse than before 1939 . It is obvious to any one who reads the American newspapers that the Korean war has saved America from an economic crisis. Before war broke out in 1939, there were between 10.000,000 and 12,000,000 unemployed persons in the United States of America, between 7,000.000 and8,000,000 in England and several hundreds of thousands in Australia. When war broke out, those who wore dispensable before the war became indispensable. The last thing that enters the minds of the capitalists is to reorganize their internal economy so that there will be no need to prepare for war, or to capture the markets or the territory of other countries. The alternative to such a reorganization is to go on preparing for war until, in all probability, another war breaks out unless the workers in various countries take a stronger stand than they have taken hitherto. We are already beginning to feel the effects of economic warfare.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the remarks of Senator Cameron are, not relevant to the subject before the Chair.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have listened withgreat interest to Senator Cameron, and he is, in my opinion, in order.

SenatorCAMERON. - Economic warfare is making itself felt in Australia through the importation of Japanese goods. If these importations are not controlled, as they could be controlled by the Government, the effect will be that many Australian industries, upon which the workers depend for their livelihood, will have to close down, or the workers will have to accept the standards of cheap Japanese labour. Already, with the blessing of this Government, Australia is suffering from economic infiltration by the Japanese.

We are being asked to allow history to repeat itself. Dr. Paul Einzig is one of the leading authorities in Great Britain on international finance and banking. In 1939 or 1940, in this cham ber, I quoted from a book that he wrote in 1987, in which he said that if war broke out and thousands of Englishmen were killed, the British Government would be just as responsible as Hitler would be. In 1941, Dr. Einzig wrote a book entitled Appeasement Before and During the War. in which he said, much more emphatically than in 1937, that the Government and the bankers of Great Britain and the Government and the bankers of the United States of America did more to make Germany a military force than Germany itself was capable of doing. Dr. Einzig, who has an international reputation, has written eighteen or nineteen books on international finance. Let me say that he isby no means a supporter of Labour. In the early 1930’s he wrote a book entitled The Economic Foundations of Fascism, in which he more or less supported fascism in Italy and the Nazi regime in Germany. In the preface to his book, Appeasement Before and During War, he wrote -

It is my contention that the tragic error of judgment of those who in the past believed in the possibility of inducing Hitler by means of appeasement to abandon his aggressive designs, have a large share in the responsibility for the present war. . . . The camp of appeasers was a very mixed company indeed. It included those who had become converted in favour of fascist and Nazi doctrines; the pro-German and anti-French elements; those who felt that in the past Great Britain had been by no means above reproach: those who regarded Hitler as a bulwark against communism; bankers and business men anxious to retain their profit on trade with Germany; non-register pacifists who would have preferred slavery under Hitler to war; wishful thinkers who had succeeded in persuading themselves that Hitler’s latest demand was positively the last and its satisfaction would dispose of the danger of aggression; and a number of cowards pure and simple who would have conceded Hitler anything rather than risk their very, very precious skins.

According to Dr. Einzig, Germany did not pay1d. in reparations. He wrote also -

As and when Germany discharged her political indebtedness to her former opponents she increased her commercial indebtedness abroad. And when it came to the final reckoning this commercial indebtedness was defaultedupon. Consequently, it is true to say that the German nation paid no reparations to the Allies.

That will happen in relation to Japan if this treaty be ratified. “We cannot rely upon anything that is .said on the higher international plane. The excuses that were advanced for default by Germany will again be advanced for default by Japan. Dr. Einzig continued -

While the Allies were satisfied with book entries and purely fictitious transfer of payment, Germany collected her reparations in the form of goods- with intrinsic value. While the net result of the reparations set up by the Treaty of Versailles was an incrca.se of Germany’s actual wealth, the obvious result to Germany from 1939 onwards was a rapid decline in the natural wealth of the conquered peoples. . . . Whatever the intentions of the Allied statesmen may have been, in practice the result of their collective wisdom at Versailles was that Germany was let off reparations completely. … It is evident that the system by which Germany paidrepa rations at the expense of her foreign creditors was proceeding with the knowledge and approval of the British authorities.

– I withdraw it without any reservation.

Senator CAMERON:

– I do not take great exception to the remark. Elementary psychology teaches us that, by a process of mental projection, the honorable senator has attributed to me traits that he possesses. He is using innuendo and insult as an excuse for argument. If Japan is rearmed and Australia is attacked posterity will curse this Govern ment, and it is more likely that that will happen than not because all preparations for war, whether in Japan or elsewhere, are a challenge to war. The only question remaining to be answered is when and where the war will begin.

The rearmament that has been ordered by the United States of America will probably result in the future position being even more dangerous than the past. I cannot see how any intelligent Australian can justify the ratification of this treaty. All the evidence necessary - on which to base a judgment is available and Australians had a terrible experience during the years 1939-45. Yet honorable senators opposite have advocated the arming of these people who have slaughtered Australians thereby making it possible for them to engage in slaughter again. I cannot understand honorable senators adopting that attitude. The Government and its supporters have now made statements which are directly opposed to those which they made in 1945. If this treaty is ratified and there is economic warfare between Japan, aided by America, and Australia, there will be a great deal of industrial strife in this country. Honorable senators should not be under any illusion. The average Australian is not prepared to submit to the economic infiltration that took place before the war and which has started again as a result of the de facto ratification of the treaty. The Government is not sufficiently courageous to submit the ratification of this treaty to the people by a referendum. It knows that its proposal would be defeated. If the Government ratifies this treaty it will act without a mandate, in defiance of the people, and in the interests, not of Australia, but of American capitalists.

Senator WORDSWORTH:
Tasmania

– I rise to support the signing of this treaty. Before I gave this matter consideration I rather thought on the lines adopted by Senator Cameron, but when I recognized the cold facts T changed m,y mind. Honorable senators opposite have contended that there would be less to fear from an unarmed Japan than from an armed Japan. That is quite right. It is common sense. But will there be more to fear from an armed Japan in twenty years’ time than there is to fear from Russia in 1953 or 1954? The attitude of Japan in twenty years’ time may be problematical. Only a prophet could foretell the attitude of Japan in twenty years, but any one could foretell the attitude of Russia in 1953 or 1954.

Senator Hendrickson:

– -Russia was our ally in 1944.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– Yes. Japan was our ally in 1914 and provided an escort for our ships, which illustrates how futile it is to foretell what action a nation will take in ten or twenty years’ time. Japan was with us in 1914, but was against us in 1941. It may be with us in the next war. Italy was our ally in the first World War and fought against us in World War TI. The lesson of history in regard to Japan is that it is problematical on whose side it will be, but we know whose side Russia is on. We must not let emotion enter into our consideration of this matter. I loathe Japan. I spent many months in fighting against Japan. Our people have suffered tremendously at the hands of that nation. I do not really want Australia to sign a treaty with Japan. If I allowed myself to be swayed by my emotions, I would loathe the thought, but we have to face the facts and do our best for the people of Australia. The Opposition’s attitude is based on emotion. Let us quit emotion and examine the cold facts. Let us endeavour to ascertain the courses that arc open to us. There are only two of them. One is to sign and the other is not to sign. The policy of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) appears to be that we should not sign the treaty yet, but should wait and argue for a little while and ascertain whether we can get something better. But we should still have to make up our minds sooner or later whether we would sign. Let us examine the course of refusing to sign the treaty. That would result in our remaining at war with Japan. How long should we remain at war; for ten or twenty years or forever ? I do not know. Forty-seven other nations intend to sign the treaty. Are we to argue about it? Suppose that we go on arguing until the other 47 nations have signed the treaty. We should then be in a very weak position. We should be the only nation that was out of step.

Opposition senators claim that Australia should not sign the treaty because Japan should not be allowed to rearm. I should not say that we would be absolutely alone in refusing to sign the treaty because Russia and its satellites do not intend to sign it. India also has refused to sign it because it considers the treaty to be too harsh. However, if Australia refused to sign we should be alone among the Communist nations. In other words, we would be in the Communist camp. The very best reason for not signing the pact is that Russia will not sign it. What Russia, does not want we should want. What is Moscow’s objective? It is to try to divide the democracies and this treaty provides a very good opportunity for it to further that objective. Japan is vitally placed strategically both in the cold and in the hot war. It has tremendous manufacturing potentialities and great man-power. Any nation that gained and maintained control of Japan might control Asia and, in controlling Asia, it would be well on the way to control the world. Therefore, Japan is extremely vital to us.

If we do not keep Japan on our side Russia will walk into that country. If Japan is to be kept unarmed it must be defended against Russia. Who is to do that? The United States of America, has announced that it will not do so. Therefore, if Australia is to keep Japan unarmed it must defend Japan without assistance. That would Le an impossible task. At a moderate estimate, it would take over 100,000 men to defend and occupy Japan and prevent it from being rearmed. We have had extreme difficulty in producing a couple of battalions of men to fight in Korea. It would be impossible for Australia to produce a force of the size necessary to occupy Japan. Even if we could provide the man-power, could we afford the money? The departure of 100,000 men from Australia for the occupation of Japan would result in the financial ruin of this country. Inflation would be rampant. Such a proposition could not bc considered. But supposing that we could and did occupy Japan. What would he our position in relation to Russia? As

Australia and Russia would not have signed the Japanese peace treaty, Russia might assume that it had the right to share the occupation of Japan with us. That would put us into a pretty pickle. Would we welcome Russia as an ally to help us to keep Japan unarmed? If we refused Russian assistance what would he the result? It would probably be war with Russia. We should either have to accept Russia as an ally or offer resistance. Then we should be left alone without any friends in a war against Russia. There is another line that Russia might adopt. If we refuse to ratify the treaty, Russia could very well say, “We will ratify the treaty and allow Japan to rearm. What is more, we will provide arms to enable Japan to rearm, as we have provided arms in Korea”. What would we do then? Would we say to Russia, “ You must not supply arms to Japan. If you attempt to do so, we will stop you”? We are such a small nation that I doubt very much whether we could stop Russia from supplying arms to Japan. I believe that Russia wants us to keep Japan in bondage, because suppression breeds communism.

I do not agree with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the Communist party in Japan welcomes the treaty, because, as I have said before, I believe that Russia’s aim is to prevent the treaty from being ratified. We must not be unmindful of what occurred in Germany after World War I. I am convinced that the depressed conditions of those days were responsible for Germany commencing to prepare for World War II. Just recently, the representatives of the United States of America, Great Britain and other European nations agreed to the rearmament of Germany. I contend that the impact on European nations of the rearmament of Germany will be similar to the impact of the rearmament of Japan on Australia. In both instances, the Allied powers have agreed to the rearmament of their enemies of only a few years ago. As the free nations of the world have agreed to permit the rearmament of Germany, I can see no logical reason why we should refuse to ratify the treaty of peace with Japan, the terms of which will enable that country to rearm. As the United States of America has already helped democracies throughout the world to rearm, conceivably it will make gifts of arms to Japan. Are we to say to the Americans, “ We will not permit you to supply arms to Japan”? It is inconceivable that we could become involved in a war against the United States of America. Obviously, the United States of America would reply, “We will not stop “. As a very small nation, we do not cut much ice in these matters. We are almost alone in our views about rearmament. It would be futile for Australia to resist the decision of the major Allied powers to permit Japan to rearm.

By refusing to ratify the proposed treaty we should probably lose all of our friends, and we could not then expect any assistance from them in connexion with a war that might develop with Russia. I concede that there is a grave danger associated with what Japan’s attitude might be in ten years’ time or twenty years’ time. Because of that country’s lack of resources and poor defences at present, I do not think that Japan could menace us before that time. 1 would gladly support any action to eliminate that possibility of danger in the future. But I point out that, unless Japan is permitted to rearm, protection must be provided for that country by other nations. . The United States of America will not provide protection, and we cannot provide it. Either we ratify the treaty or change our colours and join the Communists. Our hands are being forced by circumstances. I consider that it is better that we should accept the problematical chance of war again with Japan in ten years’ time or twenty years’ time than be forced into a war with Russia within the next few years.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Senator Wordsworth has stated that we should quit emotion and study facts. I shall do just that. Of all the nations that have ratified or announced their intention to ratify the treaty none has more cause than Australia to fear the future outlook of the Japanese. Geographically, we are closer to Japan than are other allied nations, and we have every reason to fear the implications of the proposed treaty. It is a remarkable document. I believe that the probability of future trouble with that country arises not so much from what has been said in it as from what has been left unsaid. My first objection to the proposed treaty is that it will complete a circle, and not a very happy circle at that. I well remember the emergence of the Atlantic Charter which required the unconditional surrender of our enemies of World War II. In common with the majority of people of the free countries of the world, I applauded that decision. I point out that, that decision was arrived at by representatives of democracies without consulting their parliaments. I honestly believe that the majority of the people of those countries believed that that decision was a correct one, but whether or not the requirements of unconditional surrender could be termed a harsh peace that may lay the foundation for future wars, is a matter for individual thought. I stress that at that time nothing but unconditional surrender would suffice to whet the appetites of the free peoples of the world, lt was reasonable to assume that that spirit would be evinced when the time came for the signing of treaties of peace with Germany and Japan. A number of agreements followed, culminating in the Potsdam Agreement. The terms of those agreements tended to modify the original decision that nothing short of unconditional surrender by our enemies would be acceptable to the Allied nations. We were able to demonstrate forcibly to the urban dwellers of Germany that the German army had been defeated in war, by displaying our tanks and troops in the main streets of Berlin. However, the position in Japan was entirely different, because, apart from the dropping of the atomic bomb, the Japanese mainland had not been invaded. The Japanese Government was still relatively intact at, the time of the surrender of that country. Without casting aspersions on the people who were responsible for subsequent agreements, I am convinced that the terms of those agreements made it clear to the -Japanese that we were endeavouring to preserve the lives of our troops. Although the Japanese did in fact submit to unconditional surrender, they have pointed out frequently since then that their generals failed them in the field. History had repeated itself. After their defeat in 191S, the Germans claimed that the population behind the armies was not strong enough to support the troops in the field. I should like to remind honorable senators of the terms of the new Japanese constitution that was drafted by the United Nations. Article 9 reads -

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, hind, sea. and air forces, as well as other war potential will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the State will not be recognised.

Just as Japan can take the view that tho.ee words do not express what the Japanese meant, so, by implication, will it be able to claim that the proposed treaty gives them every right to rearm without limitation. From the word “ never “ we come to almost the infinite in relation to armaments. I wonder whether in 1942, John Foster Dulles or any other representative of the democracies would have had the audacity to propose that Australia should agree to a document such as the proposed treaty, and say, in effect, “ These people are not so bacl as they have been painted. It ha3 all been a grand mistake. We should consider setting about rearming them “. All of us can throw our minds back to the dark days of 1942 and the two succeeding years. What is the difference between the Japanese people of 1942 and the Japanese people of 1952? What is the difference between the system under which Japan was governed then and the system under which it is governed now? What is the difference in the geographic and military situation that obtained then and that which obtains now?

Senator Robertson:

– After eleven months of discussion?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Mr. John Foster Dulles hawked the peace proposals around the world, but we were given no chance to discuss them. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) himself admitted that it was not the treaty that he would like, but he claimed that there was no chance of getting 47 nations to agree to any better peace treaty. Australia, more than any other country, is interested in the future of Japan and of the Pacific nations. I agree that we should maintain close relations with America, but we should not he dominated by that country. We should be a partner with America, and should be able to offer advice about Pacific problems generally, particularly about those that affect the south-west Pacific. I trust that all the fears that have been expressed about the treaty by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, as well as by some on the other side, will prove to be groundless. I hope that my own doubts are without justification. I sincerely hope that I will be proved to be utterly wrong. I do not believe that Australia should have signed the treaty just because the other nations were signing it. We should have withheld our signature if we believed the treaty to be faulty. I hope, Mr. President, that the future of your children and of mine will not be jeopardized because of this treaty. Above all, I sincerely hope that no future Australian government will ever become so subservient in a matter so vital to the welfare of Australia.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to support this treaty, anc! to speak of one or two matters which should receive some consideration. Not nearly enough has been said in this debate about the great debt of gratitude which we owe to the United States of America. I am deeply concerned over some of the remarks made by members of the Opposition about America. If we recall the dark days of the war, we must concede that America saved Australia at that time. During the days when we dreaded what the future might hold, when the Japanese were approaching the mainland of Australia - perhaps we in Queensland recall those days more vividly than some who were farther away - it was the might of America which stopped the Japanese, turned them back, drove them out of the islands and finally conquered Japan. I am not decrying for one moment the willingness of our other allies to help us, nor am 1 attempting to minimise the magnificent part played, in the campaign by the men of our own armed services: but I repeat that it was the armed might of America, its enormous industrial power, its almost unlimited financial resources and its huge reservoir of manpower that forced the Japanese to accept defeat. We in Australia saw something of those enormous resources which were brought here, and put into use in defence of this country. I remind honorable Senators that in those dark days, when disaster seemed very close, we Australians were well content to accept American leadership. We trusted American leaders with the lives of our troops, and everyone will agree that the trust was not misplaced.

Later, when it caine to framing peace terms with the defeated enemy, the United States of America did not attempt to wield the big stick or to say, “ This is the treaty, and you must accept it. Some honorable Senators opposite have suggested as much, but they are wrong. There was, in fact, conference after conference at which there were numerous discussions of proposals that could be placed before the legislatures of the countries concerned. In all those discussions the allied countries participated on a democratic basis, so that every nation had an equal voice in the framing of the treaty. Much time and thought were put into the treaty. It may be taken for granted that there has never been a. perfect peace treaty, and it would be a miracle if, with 4S nations involved, a perfect treaty had been drawn up on this occasion, but at least every nation concerned has had its say. All have presented their views, and those views have not been suppressed or brushed aside. They have been weighed and considered, and those that were favourable have been incorporated in the treaty. Out of the conferences and discussions has emerged the treaty which we are now discussing. Admittedly it is a compromise. The Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) said of it -

All of us are aware of its shortcomings, all of us have misgivings about it one way or the other.

That is inevitable in the case of a compromise treaty, but at least it is a workable instrument to which 4S nations have subscribed It is not my purpose now to discuss arguments for and against the provisions of the treaty. I was in the New Guinea area during the war, and saw something of war’s grim realities. As one who fully realizes the tregedy that war brings to many lives I can only pray for peace, as I believe all honorable senators do. I welcome any treaty that will bring us even slightly nearer to the achievement of peace.

I want to place upon record our recognition of the achievements of the armed forces of this country, which during the last war, wrote a chapter of gallantry, courage and achievement. To-night, we record our recognition of what the men and women of those forces did for us. I wish to record also our recognition of the debt that we owe to the United States of America. I deplore the fact that some honorable senators opposite have decried that great nation. We owe a debt to theUnited States of America, not only for having saved Australia but also for having accorded to the allied nations the right fully to participate in the formulation of the Japanese peace treaty. I believe that the grant of that right toAustralia was a recognition by the Americans of the part that was played by the Australian armed forces in the war in which Japan was defeated. I am proud that Australia was able to make several valuable contributions to thetreaty. That point has been overlooked by honorable senators opposite. I support the bill.

Senator SANDFORD (Victoria) [10.1SJ. - Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have been criticized for opposing this treaty. It was made clear by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the Australian Labour party realizes that this country cannot remain indefinitely technically at war with Japan, and that a peace treaty must be signed some time. We take exception, as do the great majority of theAustralian people, to the provisions of the treaty under which Japan will bepermitted to rearm without limitation. Although honorable senators opposite profess to be excited and enthusiastic about the treaty, they realize that the Government has made a blunder. Knowing that the majority of the people of this country are definitely and irrevocably opposed tothe treaty provisions that relate to the rearmament of Japan, they are, to say the least, very uncomfortable. Thesecond reading speech of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) was full of doubts, fears and hesitations. At the beginning of the speech, the AttorneyGeneral said -

All of us have misgivings about it in oneway or another. The governments of somecountries believe that the treaty is too harsh. Others of us- -

I do not know whom he meant by “ us “ - feel that it is too soft. We in Australia - and this applies to the Government as well as to members of the Opposition and, I think, the great majority of the Australian people - cannot avoid some doubts at the prospect of Japan being restored to the family of nations without certain controls over its conduct in the future.

Ite went on to say -

We are not convinced that democracy has taken linn root in Japan. We are not sure that the Japanese can be fully trusted to steer a course in the future away from the aggressive military and economic policies that have threatened our very existence in the past.

The Government, despite the fact that it entertains those fears, ha3, in a weak- kneed manner. acquiesced in the signing of this treaty and in its ratification by thi* Parliament. The treaty will be ratified by the Parliament, unfortunately for Australia, because the Government has n majority in both Houses. The present Government parties, when in Opposition, vew very fond of advising Labour governments to hold referendums upon various questions. I am certain that, if the Government sought the opinion of the Australian people upon this treaty at a referendum, 99.9 per cent, of the electors would vote against the provisions under which Japan will be permitted to rearm without limitation. I realize the difficulties that confront the Government. I know that it is in a dilemma, and that it lini.-it do something. Our complaint is that when the draft of the treaty was produced by Mr. John Foster Dulles, this treasonable Government did not utter one word of protest against it.

Senator Pearson:

– What does the honorable senator know about that matter?

Senator SANDFORD:

– I am not talking about South Australian wheat. I am talking about something that requires the exercise of a little intelligence. Therefore, it will pay the honorable senator to keep quiet. The people of Australia looked to this Government at least to enter some protest against the terms of the treaty. Are honorable senators opposite, so soon after the cessation of hostilities with the Japanese, enthusiastic at the prospect, of a rearmed Japan? Let me remind the Senate of other doubts and fears to which the Minister gave expression in his second-reading speech. He said -

On the other hand, I will admit that honorable senators could quite legitimately enter tain fears that a revived and once more powerful Japan, assisted in its recovery by a tolerant and benign peace treaty, might in due curse itself either embark alone on fresh adventures of aggression or, at the worst, might voluntarily join forces with and give direction and impetus to Asian communism, and, in fact, use it in another attempt to achieve hegemony over the whole of Asia and the Pacific. I agree that we are faced with a dilemma.

He said later in his speech that perhaps the most important provision of the treaty is Article 5 (c), under which the Allied powers recognize “ that Japan, as a sovereign nation, possesses the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefence referred to in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and that Japan may voluntarily enter into collective security arrangements “. The Minister did not say with which country. Japan could enter into those arrangements.

He is optimistic, to say the least - even though not necessarily a democracy on the American and European models. But whether or not this happens and we must at least give it the chance to happen the immediate problem we have to consider, from the point of view of the security of Australia and the stability of Asia and the Pacific, is the security of Japan, even more than security against Japan.

That amazing statement, so soon after the cessation of hostilities with probably the most ferocious and barbarous enemy that we have ever fought-

Debate interrupted.

page 694

ADJOURNMENT

Housing - Water front Employment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I now formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I desire to refer to a subject which I raised at question time, and to which the Minister made a reply which was misleading. Within six months of the present Government taking office, the Commonwealth Bank, under Government instructions, restricted its credit policy. It restricted the amount of finance available to building societies and other organizations and also advised its clients that overdrafts had to be reduced. The result was that building societies which had been financing home builders found it difficult to obtain the finance necessary to continue their activities. As I have said, the bank gave effect to this policy on the instructions of the Government. But, even if the bank itself had instituted such action, the Government would have had power to override that policy. Therefore, the Government cannot avoid the blame by alleging that this action has been taken as a part of bank policy for which it is not responsible. The same policy has been put into operation by the private banks on instructions from the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, which could only have been issued after having been authorized by the Australian Government. The fact that the Government is competent to direct the banking policy indicates that the Minister was incorrect in the reply which he gave to my question.

I asked the Minister whether he would name the banks that were prepared to lend money for the purpose of home building and for other purposes. He said that anybank would do that. I inform the Minister that a private bank will make funds available only on the condition that they are repaid on demand. If one has sufficient security the banks have no objection to lending one a couple of thousand pounds. But if the banker is asked the period, of the loan he will reply that repayment must be made on demand. That is the reply which is received by people who wish to borrow money either to build houses or for any other purpose. I was in the office of a bunker when he rang the Commonwealth Bank in order to ascertain whether it had adopted this policy. He was told that that was so, and that loans would only be granted on condition that repayment would be made on demand. The Minister’s statement that any bank would lend money on the terms necessary for home building was completely untrue and misleading. The Government’s policy of restricting credit has caused many workers in the building trades to go to other industries. The Minister was incorrect in stating that all available labour and materials are being used in the construction of buildings. There are ample supplies of basic materials in Australia to increase the rate of housing construction, and they are being exported. Building materials are now advertised in the newspapers for immediate delivery. Dressed flooring has been advertised for immediate delivery in Melbourne. The only scarce material is locally produced iron. It is not now difficult to obtain tiles and imported iron. All the other basic materials and labour are in ample supply. It is only the Government’s policy of restricting credit that has brought about the curtailment of housing construction.

The Minister will probably say that more homes will be built this year than were built last year. Naturally ! But one-third more houses should have been built this year than were built last year. Housing construction has been increasing each year and will need to do so for another decade in order to supply all the wants of homeless people. The Government has stated that its credit restriction policy has been applied in order to drive people into essential industries. “Will the Minister dare say that home building is not an essential industry? - Hundreds of thousands of people are living in inade quate accommodation. Many of them are living in places which should have been or have been condemned. The statement that the Minister made to-day was false, incorrect and misleading. Honorable senators are entitled to expect something better from a responsible Minister than misleading statements of that nature.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– On the occasion of the debate on the motion for the adjournment last Thursday, Senator Wright implied that if a delay occurred in the shipment of apples and pears from Hobart the waterside workers would be to blame. Senator Wright said -

– That is quite incorrect. There are thousands of vacancies for employment in the building industry which cannot be filled because the men are not available. The number of houses built this year throughout Australia will be greater than during last year. There is now a greater availability of materials. I believe that, when available, the statistics will show not only a greater number of houses commenced, but also a greater number of houses built during the current financial year, as a result of a more orderly approach to this problem. I believe it to be true that many of the complaints that are made about housing are inspired only by the desire to discredit the Government. That attempt will fail because the building industry, by and large, realizes that its conditions are better now than they have been previously. The average Australian is no fool. Undoubtedly, the cost of building reached a height which was beyond the capacity of Australians to meet. There is not the slightest doubt that in the. building industry, as in many other industries throughout Australia, there is buyer resistance. People are no longer prepared to pay the prices which they paid in the past. They are aware that buildings can be completed more efficiently and economically than they have been in the past and, despite their great desire to house themselves assoon as they possibly can, they have confidence in the manner in which this Government is approaching the housing problem.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 698

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Lands Acquisiton Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes -

Beaufort, South Australia.

Nuriootpa, South Australia.

Public Service Act - Appointment - Department -

Commerce and Agriculture - B. F. Hussey.

Health -S. S. Alexander, M. A. Bundock, J. R. Cornish, C. M. Gilbo, G. A. McLean, L. Sefton, J. M. Thompson, S. D. Watsford.

Postmaster-General’s - D. G. Geddes. N. S. Middleton.

Repatriation - A. A. Page.

Works and Housing - T. G. Leonard.

Senate adjourned at 11.2 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 March 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1952/19520304_senate_20_216/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 March 1952

SENATOR GORDON BROWN

Senator GORDON BROWN:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

ACCESSION OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

TEXTILES

Senator ROBERTSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator BENN:QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator ARNOLD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

Senator ARNOLD:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator WEDGWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:CP

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator CHAMBERLAIN:TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

Senator LAUGHT:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SPOONER:

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator SHEEHAN:VICTORIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

Senator HENTY:TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

Senator SHEEHAN:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

QUESTION

MYXOMATOSIS

Senator SCOTT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator SCOTT:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator AYLETT:TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

Senator WRIGHT:TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:

Senator Wright:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator AYLETT:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator Aylett:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator FRASER:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator AYLETT:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator Aylett:

Senator SPOONER:

Senator Aylett:

Senator SPOONER:

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:LP

QUESTION

TRADE

Senator COURTICE:QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator WRIGHT:

Senate
4 March 1952

Senator GORDON BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator CHAMBERLAIN:
TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; IND from Feb. 1967

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · LP

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania