Senate
13 April 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIIin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 479

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, by saying that I note that the Australian National Line ship “ Boonaroo “ is transporting a cargo of pig iron from Whyalla in South Australia to Japan, that she will return empty, but that she will call in at Cockatoo Island at Yampi Sound to bring a load of iron ore to Port Kembla. I ask the Minister: Are any of the ships of the Australian National Line laid up for want of cargoes? If so, what are the prospects of obtaining further charters similar to the one I have mentioned, whether they be around the Australian coast or overseas?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware that any of the tonnage of the Australian National Line is at present idle. I assure the honorable senator that the Australian National Line is active at all times in the pursuit of business and will accept charters. The line has accepted them in the past, and it does so as a matter of policy. If charters are available and it is at all commercially possible for them to be undertaken by the Australian National Line, I am sure they will be undertaken.

page 479

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS AND BUILDING SOCIETIES

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister for National Development, I refer to the statement by the Treasurer that there will be a release of credit to assist the building industry. Will the Government consider placing some of these additional funds with building societies?

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

– The president and members of the executive of the building society movement recently visited Canberra and made representations to my department, suggesting that if additional funds for housing were released, those funds should be made available through building societies. Mr. Tytherleigh and his officers advanced the view that this could be done advantageously, because one of the purposes of the release of additional funds would be to provide housing in areas where there was a housing shortage or where excess materials or excess tradesmen were available. The building society movement expressed the view that we could get on to the target, as it were, by making funds available to building societies in particular areas. I thought there was a lot of merit in those representations. I have asked my department to submit the proposal to Treasury officials in order to see whether it is practicable. I do not know whether it is practicable. The additional moneys would be released through savings banks, trading banks and insurance companies in the normal way, and they may have commitments already which would prevent them from adopting this proposal. However, I think it is well worth examining in order to see whether it is practicable.

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Minister for National Development a question which is prompted by that just asked by Senator McManus in relation to the building society movement, and by the Minister’s reply. Has consideration been given to the adoption of insurance corporation schemes operating in other parts of the world as a means of providing finance for the permanent co-operative building society movement?

Senator SPOONER:

– Knowing Senator Anderson’s interest in the building society movement. I discussed this matter with birr on my return from overseas last year. I noted in Great Britain and America ‘he tremendous contribution that permanent building societies in particular have made to housing programmes. While in America, I inquired into the governmental schemes that are in operation there and, indeed, left behind the officer who accompanied me on the trip so that he could make complete inquiries. That officer has made a report to me and at the present time I am examining a proposal that an insurance corporation be established which would insure the deposits that are made with permanent buildin? societies and the shares that people take out for the purpose of gradually building up a deposit to buy a house at a later stage. Many difficulties are involved, because savings banks in Australia play a more important part in the economy than do savings banks in America and Great Britain.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The American scheme is a good one.

Senator SPOONER:

– The American scheme is a most comprehensive one, bat I do not think the mortgage market arrangements and the buying and selling of securities would be applicable in Australia. I personally think that, where it is practicable, the insurance arrangement has a lot to commend it. I am in the process of trying to crystallize my views upon it to see whether there is a proposal which I can advance to the Government.

page 480

QUESTION

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Leader of the Government heard reports that the General Motors Corporation of America has been found guilty of monopolizing the diesel locomotive trade and that many other organizations have also been convicted? Is the Minister aware that action against many huge monopolistic organizations, because of their restrictive trade practices, is pending in the United States? It the Minister aware of the grave consequences to the economy of this country of the increasing cost of commodities, as a result of the activities of monopolies, cartels and price-fixing rings? Is the Minister aware that similar activities are prevalent in Australia in the electrical, radio, television, petrol, sulphur, glass, brewing and automobile spare parts industries? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government approves of activities of this kind and, if it does not, what action has been taken to investigate the extent of such activities in this country?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Yes, I am aware in general terms of the anti-trust legislation which exists in the United States of America and which to me, as an outside observer, appears to have considerable merit. The principle underlying it seems to be a good one. Whether that sort of legislation would be of advantage for Australia is a very big question indeed. The Senate will remember that the Government has said that it is aiming at legislation along that line. We have to remember that there is a big difference between Australia and the United States, because Australia is still a small country, and more and more it is being proved that economies in manufacture follow large-scale operations and as yet our market is comparatively small. I myself think that there must be a natural trend towards the aggregation of industries in Australia, particularly if we are to expect or hope for export business, because fundamentally export business depends on low manufacturing costs. I do not think I care to say any more than that. This matter is such a big one that it is not easy for me to discuss it in a reply to a question without notice.

I repeat what has been said in the Government’s public announcements. The Attorney-General is engaged upon the task of seeing whether appropriate legislation which will suit Australian conditions can be evolved. I know that he has done a lot of work on it not only in Australia but also in consultations and inquiries overseas.

page 480

QUESTION

OYSTERS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is giving information; he is not asking a question.

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– I am coming to my question and I am prefacing it with remarks to explain it. The oysters are grown on wires suspended from bamboo rafts so that they are not allowed to touch the sea bottom. This method keeps them free from mud and drills and in a continuously moving current of water which promotes rapid growth. My questions are: First, in view of the fact that oyster farming is being carried on successfully in Australia and oysters of a high quality are being produced, can the Minister inform me whether any research work is being undertaken to improve oyster cultivation in Australia? Secondly, if the answer to my first question is in the affirmative, can he say whether the raft culture method has been tried out in this country? Thirdly, if it has not, will the Minister make representations to the appropriate authority, requesting that some investigation be made into the method I have described to see whether it could be adopted with benefit to the Australian oyster farmers?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– In answer to the honorable senator’s short statement, may I say that I am not aware whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is engaged in research on oyster farming methods, although I should imagine that it would be.

Senator Hannaford:

– It is.

Senator HENTY:

– The honorable senator advises me that it is so engaged, but I do not know whether that is so or not. However, I shall make some inquiries of the Minister in charge of that organization. If Senator Sir Walter Cooper will place his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain from the Minister for Health an appropriate answer. I am confident that the raft method of oyster culture is known to oyster farmers in Australia, but nevertheless, I shall see that an answer is supplied to the honorable senator’s question.

page 481

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Can the Leader of the Government . in the Senate say whether the considered opinion of the Government was conveyed in an answer given by Senator Gorton in the Senate yesterday, when he admitted that there were 63,000 registered unemployed in Australia? I again inform the Senate that many more thousands are unemployed than are registered. Senator Gorton concluded his answer by saying that until the degree of unemployment was considerably greater, there was no room whatever for complaint about unemployment in this country. I ask the Leader of the Government not to attempt to evade a direct answer by saying that there is a greater degree of unemployment somewhere else than there is in Australia, because that is of no consolation to the people who are at present unemployed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Gorton:

– I did not say that, anyway. I quoted Mr. Monk, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Senator SANDFORD:

– It is in “Hansard “.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Some one is stealing my thunder, Mr. President. I was going to reply that Senator Sandford obviously had made a mistake and had confused Mr. Monk’s statement with Senator Gorton’s statement. Mr. Monk said - I think with a good deal of common sense - that having regard to seasonal conditions in Australia and the need for transient labour, unemployment in Australia could hardly be said to exist until the number of unemployed persons exceeded 1.5 per cent, of the total work force. That was common sense to me; but what Senator Gorton said was that at the present time there are approximately 73,000 persons registered for employment in Australia.

page 481

QUESTION

SPACE RESEARCH

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Supply able to say whether the tracking station at Muchea, in Western Australia, made contact at any time with the Russian space capsule which yesterday took a man into space and returned him safely to earth?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I understand that contact has been made with some of the capsules that have been put into space.

Senator Branson:

– I was referring to the one launched yesterday.

Senator HENTY:

– I understand from this morning’s press reports that no contact was made. However, in case that is not correct, I shall obtain an answer for the honorable senator.

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and in doing so, I sincerely hope that I will not be charged with being a Communist. Is it the Government’s intention to send a message of congratulation to Mr. Khrushchev on the successful projection into space of the first cosmonaut and the accomplishment of his safe return to earth?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I can only give the frank answer to Senator Brown that I do not know. I read in this morning’s newspapers that congratulatory messages had been sent from various parts of the world, but I have no knowledge of the Prime Minister’s intentions in the matter.

page 482

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Will he ascertain whether it is correct that, in respect of a shipment of potatoes which arrived in Sydney on the Australian National Line vessel “ Elmore “ either on Monday morning last or some other recent date, the unloading of the shipment into merchants’ marks was abandoned and the potatoes were block stacked? If that is so, will the Minister endeavour to have retained the practice of shipments to merchants’ marks, which has proved beneficial to the potato industry? Will the Minister see that in his answer freighting to merchants’ marks is not confused with freighting to growers’ marks, which is an entirely different matter?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am afraid that I have not any information which may be of assistance to the honorable senator. I shall find out the details required from my colleague, Mr. Opperman, and let the honorable senator have them.

page 482

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport by saying that it was stated recently in the United Kingdom House of Commons that governmentapproved life jackets in all British ships were not safe and that because they were unsatisfactory a new design of jacket had been suggested for use, which would keep a man’s head out of the water. Will inquiries be made by the marine authorities in Australia to see whether life jackets on British ships visiting Australian ports are safe and satisfactory? Will a considered statement be supplied by the Minister, indicating whether the Australian Government has taken any action in the light of the report that was submitted to the Parliament at Westminster?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I can inform the honorable senator that British ships trading to Australia and around the Aus tralian coast have to comply with Australian standards and Australian regulations. The honorable senator will no doubt recall action which has been taken against certain overseas shipping companies for not complying with Australian regulations, particularly in respect of life boats and their maintenance and other equipment of this type. I give that information by way of a general answer in order to do away with any possible impression that safety standards are not complied with on the Australian coast.

The other matters which the honorable senator raises apply, presumably, to shipping and shipping practices in the United Kingdom. I shall make inquiries into the position and inform him of the result.

page 482

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for National Development inform me whether it is a fact that the Australian Government has a keen desire to increase Australia’s export income? Is it fact that, with this objective in view, over the last decade many amendments have been made to our taxation laws? Is it a fact that the Government has instructed the Treasury to issue a booklet containing the latest amendments to the taxation laws in Australia with respect to mining? If such an instruction has been given, has this booklet been published? If it has been published, what action has the Government taken to see that it has a wide distribution among the mining fraternity of Australia?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– My answer to Senator Scott’s question is that the booklet has been published in the last few days, and I pay a tribute to the Government members mining committee which originated the proposal that such a booklet should be completed. It is a good little publication. It commences by giving in non-technical terms the various provisions of the income tax laws in relation to mining. Subsequently, it quotes the relevant sections of the act and gives explanations of them. I think that h will be an invaluable manual for use by any one engaged in mining operations in Australia. I shall do the best I can to ensure that the booklet gets as wide a circulation as is practicable within the mining industry.

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the

Treasurer. Will the Government, when framing the next Budget, give sympathetic consideration to increasing from £100 to £150 a year the taxation concession allowed to parents who are endeavouring to give their children a secondary education? It has been pointed out to me that cost of keeping such children at school is increasing steadily and that the benefit derived from the present concession, which was granted in 1956, has been so eroded that it no longer covers fully even expenditure on school fees, to say nothing of expenditure on school books and uniforms, which are increasing in price.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are giving information, Senator Pearson. Will you ask your question?

Senator PEARSON:

– Such an increase would be of considerable help to these people and should, I feel, commend itself to the Government.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The very topical question asked by the honorable senator shows the importance of this concession and its value to parents with children at school. It will be recalled that this plan was one of many originated by the Menzies Government for the purpose of assisting parents with children at school. It has been received with enthusiasm and commendation everywhere. The honorable senator has suggested that the allowance be increased. He will appreciate that that is a matter which will receive the attention of the Government when the next Budget is being framed.

page 483

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Will he say to what extent the Australian Government is likely to be involved in the situation that has arisen because armed nationals of another country have taken possession of the British ship “ Runic “ off the Australian coast? Is the Australian Government to be reimbursed the cost of sending assistance to “Runic” when it was first stranded? Can anything be done by the Australian Government to protect the interests of the rightful owners of this vessel?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– ‘The honorable senator has addressed his question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I suggest, with respect, that he put the question on notice, addressing it to the Minister for External Affairs, within whose jurisdiction this matter may lie.

page 483

QUESTION

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE

Senator MCKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is there any danger of the introduction of foot and mouth disease to the flocks and herds of this country through the importation of canned meat? Is it a fact that imports of insufficiently cooked pig meat could constitute a real threat to our pig industry? Lastly, what action is. the Minister for Primary Industry taking to prevent this dreaded disease from being introduced to this country?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · VICTORIA · LP

– Canned meats can enter this country only when supported by the most stringent quarantine certificate. I am not aware of all the requirements, but I do know that canned meats must be packed in hermetically sealed cans. I know, too, that importations must be supported by a government veterinary officer’s certificate declaring that at the point of slaughter the stock was free of the disease. The cooking of the meat is most important. I understand that any importations must be accompanied by a manufacturer’s certificate declaring that the meat has been thoroughly cooked at a temperature of 100 degrees centigrade. I think that that brief summary of the requirements will indicate that the Government is doing everything possible to prevent the entry of this disease into this country.

page 483

QUESTION

OIL,

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Bureau of Mineral Resources published any document containing reports 6f research into mineral oil deposits in Australia by the bureau or bv companies receiving subsidies from the Government? If so, does that publication contain graphs and other details in relation to wells sunk by the bureau and by private companies receiving subsidies? Will the

Minister give wide publicity, as he has suggested should be done, to the report that has been issued for political propaganda purposes?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I must cross swords with Senator O’Flaherty in relation to his allegation that the booklet that has been issued is designed for purposes of political propaganda. That is not the case. The publication is a first-class one and is devoid of politics. It outlines the taxation position in relation to the mining industry, and I am certain that the information contained in it will be of great value to all interested parties.

So far as the question relates to the results of drillings and surveys of the holes that have been subsidized, I think we have now reached a situation where two, three or four reports have been published. A further three reports are on my table now. A good deal of difficulty is entailed in getting the reports completed. In the first place some time must necessarily elapse before a report may be published. There is an obligation not to publish information for a certain period so that the party that incurs half the cost of drilling gets the value of the results obtained before somebody else does. If Senator O’Flaherty cares to read some of the reports he will find that they are rather technical. They require a good deal of careful drafting and consideration before they are released. It is essential that the reports be accurate and factual, because they are a guide to companies engaged in the search for oil.

page 484

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Undoubtedly the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, to whom my question is addressed, is well acquainted, through statements that appeared in the press of Western Australia, with the escapade of a certain lady of Geraldton. The voyage that she intended to make in an open boat from Geraldton to Darwin was given rather unnecessary publicity in the press, as is usual in matters of this kind. Are seaworthiness and other safety factors of such craft involved in such rather foolish and hazardous escapades the responsibilities of the Commonwealth? If so, in the circumstances of the incident to which I am referring, would it have been possible for action to have been taken by some Commonwealth authority to prevent this obvious foolhardy and hazardous journey by this unfortunate woman?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The registration and regulation of ships of the type in question - bay vessels as they are known in the jargon of the business - are responsibilities of the State governments. Ships that ply within a State do not usually come within the purview of the Commonwealth Navigation Branch. Over the years there has been close and continuing collaboration between the Commonwealth and the States - with some States more than with others - in an endeavour to modernize the shipping regulations as they apply within the States. The vessel which was involved in this incident was, as I understand the newspaper account, a rowing boat.

Senator Branson:

– It was 9 feet long.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It was a 9-ft. rowing boat. My understanding is that the State regulations do not even require the registration of a vessel of that size. I am pleased to be able to tell the honorable senator that, whilst this matter does not in any way concern Commonwealth administration, an officer of the navigation service who was attached, I understand, to a lighthouse in the vicinity used his best personal endeavours to dissuade the lady from undertaking the venture she had planned but that his efforts were of no avail.

page 484

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator ANDERSON:

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether it is a fact that, as reported, in one week in March the following incidents were portrayed on television in Sydney: - 105 shootings, six stabbings, 50 fist fights, nine beatings, one whipping and 21 other assaults, one death by holding a pillow over the victim’s face until she suffocated, and a scene which showed in minute detail how to bash a man to death with repeated hand blows on the head and heart. Is it a fact that social welfare authorities, and indeed all normally-minded viewers, are appalled at this constant and repeated exhibition of murder and mayhem? Is it a fact, too, that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has a code of standards for commercial television which is set out in a document styled “Television Programme Standards”? I ask the Minister whether this document in paragraph 8 on page 3 states, in part -

  1. Certain basic requirements must always be observed. No programme may contain any matter which is:

    1. Blasphemous, indecent, obscene, vulgar or suggestive;
    2. Likely to encourage crime or pub lic disorder;
    3. Likely to be injurious to community well-being or morality.

When does the Postmaster-General intend to make the Broadcasting Control Board take some action to bring sanity back into television?

Senator WADE:
LP

– Senator Anderson has referred to certain matters and has asked me whether I know them to be facts. I do not know the origin of the statement, but I am prepared to accept the implication contained in his question that these bashings, shootings and all sorts of fiendish methods of torturing people are not acceptable to the great body of public opinion. I do not know to what extent such programmes are being used. I suggest that the honorable senator should place his question on the notice-paper so that he may bring to the attention of the Postmaster-General himself the points he has raised. I am sure he will get an appropriate answer. In fairness to the Postmaster-General, I should like to add that he has quite categorically set down his own views on these matters, and I believe he would welcome an opportunity to investigate the allegations that have been made by the honorable senator.

page 485

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Senator HENDRICKSON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Have Commonwealth officers who are handling large sums of money, such as those dealing with pensions and those working in post offices and in the Commonwealth Bank, expressed concern because of recent hold-ups?
  2. If an officer were killed in a robbery, would payments to his dependants hinge upon the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act? If so, in view of the circumstances, would such payments be adequate?
  3. Will the Treasurer have a statement prepared on the present position and see whether anything can be done to put this problem on a more satisfactory basis?
  4. What is the position in the event of a third party being killed or injured by an officer in a hold-up?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Not to my knowledge.
  2. The liability of the Commonwealth as employer would be determined within the terms of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930-1959 or at common law. The dependants may also have an action against third parties.
  3. The Commonwealth has arranged contracts for the transport of money by armoured car services in all capital cities. These contracts are available to all Commonwealth departments. However, I think that this aspect of the question would be better pursued by a question addressed to the Minister of any department in which the security arrangements against hold-ups are considered not to be satisfactory.
  4. This question seeks a legal opinion. It is contrary to the practice of the Senate for Ministers to be asked for, and for Ministers to give in answer, legal opinions.

page 485

QUESTION

DENTAL HEALTH

Senator LAUGHT:
through Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - 1.Is any action in train for the introduction into Australia of a dental health scheme based on the principles of the present contributory medical health scheme which is working so well?

  1. If so, in view of the fact that such a scheme would be welcomed by the majority of members of the dental profession and a large proportion of the Australian community, could the Minister give some details of the scheme?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Health has now furnished the following replies: -

  1. No.
  2. See 1. above.

page 485

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator HANNAN:
through Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. In view of the importance of Australia’s balance of payments problems, how much overseas exchange has been expended in the purchase of (a) overseas feature films for the last three financial years, and (b) television films or recorded programmes (both national and commercial) from November, 1956, until the present time?
  2. How much exchange will be expended for television material only for the full financial year 1960-61?
  3. What is the anticipated exchange requirement for television only for 1961-62?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following information: - 1. (a) Expenditure of overseas exchange on films for theatrical release in the past three financial years was approximately: -

Separate figures are not available in relation to feature films.

  1. Foreign currency expenditure on television programme material from November, 1956, to 31st March, 1961, was approximately £A.7,500,000.

    1. Foreign currency expenditure on television material in the 9 months ended 31st March, 1961, was approximately £A. 2,000,000. There is no satisfactory basis for a forecast of expenditure for the balance of 1960-61 or for 1961-62.

page 486

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator COLE:
through Senator McManus

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

What stage has been reached by the Department of Immigration in providing a migrant holding centre for Tasmania?

Senator HENTY:
LP

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

The Department of Immigration does not plan to establish a migrant accommodation centre in Tasmania. It has, in conjunction with the Department of Labour and National Service, given consideration to the question of setting up a Commonwealth hostel in Tasmania, to serve as a staging unit for migrants. To this end, investigations are continuing with a view to obtaining, if possible, satisfactory premises in a suitable location.

page 486

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HENDRICKSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Did the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Wade, in answer to a question asked by Senator Drake-Brockman regarding the payment of this year’s wheat crop, state that the first payment of 9s. per bushel had been paid?
  2. If so, as I am informed that this is not the case, would the Minister ascertain the correct position regarding payments and make this information available to the Senate?
Senator WADE:
LP

– I now furnish the following information: -

  1. I refer the honorable senator to the reply I gave him on this matter in the Senate on the 2 1st March last.
  2. Payments at the rate of 9s. per bushel commenced early in December last and continued as the growers submitted their claims. From inquiries made of the Australian Wheat Board, which is responsible for the payments, there was apparently some delay in Victoria, due to the congestion caused by a very large number of late claims in respect of unusually heavy crop deliveries. The problem was not overcome until March. By the end of March £94,000,000 had been paid to wheat growers by the Australian Wheat Board.

page 486

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator McKenna) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Armstrong be granted leave of absence for two months on account of absence overseas.

page 486

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Debate resumed from 12th April (vide page 478), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin -

That the following paper -

Overseas Visit 1961 - Statement by the Prime Minister, dated 11th April, 1961 - be printed.

Upon which Senator McKenna had moved, by way of amendment -

Leave out all words after “That”, insert “ in the opinion of this Senate, the speeches and statements made by the Prime Minister on the question of South Africa, following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, have done great harm to Australia’s relations with other member States of the Commonwealth, and with the nations of South-East Asia; have aggravated the position he created at the United Nations meeting in October last year; and do not represent the views of the Australian people. “ The Senate resolves, therefore, that as Minister of State for External Affairs he should be censured and considers that he should be removed from that office “.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- When the Senate adjourned last evening, I was referring to the world-wide indignation against the apartheid happenings in South Africa, but I was also saying that there was some lack of ground for unctuous selfrighteousness among some of the critics of the South African people at the present time. I pointed out that we in Australia must come under fire for our treatment of our aborigines. I also pointed out that among Asians and Africans there was criticism of our white Australia policy. I know that some senators have eloquently argued that the white Australia policy is based not on colour but rather on economic and other considerations, and they have referred to the fact that one Asian leader at least has shown some acceptance of the policy. But I believe that those who suggest that the white Australia policy does not contain the seeds of future conflict are highly optimistic. I believe that that policy will come increasingly under fire from the nations of Asia and Africa, proud as they are of their new freedom, and strongly nationalistic in their point of view.

I have grave doubts that this country will be able to maintain the white Australia policy for very long against the increasing international pressure. My view is supported by an eminent Australian trade union leader, who said at the last Citizenship Convention that international pressure against the white Australia policy was increasing. I am one of those who would like to see our Government have a look at the legislation which goes under the name of the white Australia policy with a view to mitigating as far as possible some of its more rigid features. One of the crueller features of the legislation is that which permits Asians to come to this country as employees in businesses which are under Asian proprietorship - the number of such people coming here is very small - but says that they are not permitted to bring with them their wives and families. That appears to me to be cruel and barbaric. As I understand the situation, the Asian proprietor, being in what is known as an executive capacity, can obtain permission to bring his wife and children here, but the employee does not receive that privilege. His only hope is that, if he stays in this country, after a period of fifteen years he may apply for a permit for permanent residence and, having obtained it, may then seek naturalization and be re-united with his family.

That provision seems to me to be cruel and unnecessary. Surely there is something repugnant to every Australian in the thought that the Asian employer can live in this country with his wife and children, when the Asian employee cannot. I know that the present administrator of the Department of Immigration, Mr. Downer, is a man of great humanity. I know that although he is compelled to administer the legislation as passed by the Parliament, he has, wherever possible, humanized its administration. I know that the Government from time to time has taken action to humanize certain provisions of the legislation. Apart altogether from the question of colour, it seems repugnant to an Australian that an employer should have family privileges which are not available to the employee. I appeal to the Government to examine that aspect and place both employer and employee upon the same basis. The number of employees permitted in under this provision is very small. I do not think this alteration would make a great deal of difference to the character of the present immigration system. I believe, though, that it would have a good effect and it would certainly bring great comfort to Asian people of fine character in this country who are suffering separation from their wives and families for many years.

I referred to the white Australia policy. 1 do not like the term. I think that it is needlessly offensive to Asian and African people. If it is contended that it is a planned migration policy, let us call it such. I heard representatives of the Opposition say yesterday that our standing in Asia had been affected by the Prime Minister’s references to the white Australia policy, but I noticed that when the question of doing away with the term was put before the federal body of the Australian Labour Party a year or two ago, that body refused to do away with it. 1 know that a strong section of the Australian Labour Party would still like that term replaced by one that is more acceptable and less repugnant to the feelings of Asian and African people, and I hope that the day will come when their efforts will be successful. My party is opposed to the term “white Australia”. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should lift the barriers and allow any one to come into Australia. The Asian governments as well as the Australian Government realize that that would not be good for either them or us. I believe that we could humanize our legislation. If the Asians who are studying in this country wish to remain here after the conclusion of their studies, they should be permitted to do so. I realize that probably they are needed more in their own countries than here and I would not like to prevent them from going back and making available to their own countries the advantages of the study they have done here. But, if we said to them, “ If you wish to stay at the conclusion of your studies, you are welcome to do so”, that would have a good effect.

I should also like something to be done about the mixed bloods of New Guinea. To my way of thinking, it is an anomaly that they are Australian citizens but they are not allowed into this country. They are in a position which must occasion them considerable pain and embarrassment as a result of that anomaly. I should like the Government to give consideration to their position so that when Australia stands on the platforms of the world and expresses its views on the racial policies of other countries we can at least point to the fact that we are improving our own policies.

Last night I referred to the fact that at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference it might well have been said when the attacks were made upon South Africa, “ Let him who is without sin cast the first stone “. I am one of the first to deplore, the apartheid policy - but if we are going to be blunt about South Africa, let us be blunt about Ghana. If you speak to parliamentarians and other people who have visited that country, they will tell you that the operation of the democratic system in Ghana to-day is highly suspect. I can appreciate the difficulties of the new government. I have no desire to depreciate the fact that it faces big problems. As in other African countries, the boundaries of Ghana were not marked out on the basis of ethnological groups. Certain countries took certain areas without regard to the divisions that were sometimes made between tribes. So tribes are separated by boundaries, although in Africa to-day the main bond between different groups is the fact that they belong to the same tribe.

Mr. Nkrumah governs a country in which a considerable number of the people have had no experience of democracy. Therefore, I would not suggest for one moment that we could expect him to bring a pure democracy into existence in his country overnight. But one cannot help being alarmed at the stories that members of the

Parliamentary Opposition are intimidated and subjected to physical violence. One cannot help being alarmed at stories such as one which was told to me by an Australian who was sent to that country by his firm last year. He informed me that a prominent personality in the government asked for the loan of his car one evening and said that he wanted the car because he had engaged the services of a half a dozen strong-arm boys to go to the homes of two members of the Parliamentary Opposition who had been criticizing him and beat them up. Certain of the tribes in Ghana to-day are being subjected to very violent treatment by the government in order to bring them into line. In those circumstances, as I have said, the statement might well have been made at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

In Ceylon the Tamils are subject to serious racial discrimination which has culminated in the use of violence against them. While the Prime Minister, Mrs. Bandaranaike, is an estimable person, she has been forced to bring into her government persons with strong Trotskyist Communist views and they are overriding and influencing the government to such an extent that recently legislation was introduced to confiscate the churches and schools of religious bodies, to nationalize the press - which will mean the end of freedom of speech - and to ban horse-racing within six months.

In Malaya legislation has been passed and endeavours have been made to ensure that the Chinese will not receive representation in the government in accordance with their numbers and influence. In India there is the caste system. I suppose it could be said that in many respects the full application of the caste system is worse than apartheid in South Africa.

Senator Wedgwood:

– There are the untouchables.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes. If even the shadow of an untouchable fell upon some people in India they would feel compelled to go home and purify themselves merely because the shadow of the untouchable had fallen upon them. I have no desire to suggest that Mr. Nehru and his government support that action. I know that they are trying as much as they can to do away with it, but strong religious feelings are preventing them from getting very far. It is claimed that in Kashmir Indian troops are preventing the Mohammedan people from entering Pakistan which naturally they want to join.

Cyprus was admitted to the Commonwealth of Nations, and already the Turkish minority has announced its refusal to cooperate with the government on the ground that there is discrimination against it. In Pakistan a dictatorship has had to be introduced and Parliament has been done away with. I have no desire to suggest that that may not have been necessary because I recognize facts. People who had no experience of parliamentary government cannot be expected to receive their freedom and operate a pure democracy overnight. Therefore, while I have sympathy for the point of view of such countries, we also must have sympathy for other countries which face very severe problems. I suggest that one such country is South Africa.

Some honorable senators have said that it was a good thing that South Africa was put out of the Commonwealth and some regret that it was put out. I regret it, but the way things were developing in South Africa it was inevitable that it would leave the Commonwealth. I do not agree that apartheid is to be attributed entirely to arrogance or a sense of racial superiority. Let us be honest. It is due to fear. The national day of the South African people is Dingaan’s Day, the day on which a small force of Boers defeated the attempt of a large force of Zulus to massacre them. The white people are a minority living in an area where there is a large majority of coloured people. While I regret what has been done and while I consider that the murder of the people at Sharpeville was dastardly, I put those matters aside for a moment, and ask: If such things were happening in Australia how many of us would be adopting the attitude that the South Africans are adopting to-day? What is happening there is due to fear. There is a small white group of a few million people in a black continent.

Let us be quite honest. The attitude of the general body of black people in South Africa to-day is, “ White man go home! “.

The black people believe that Africa is their national home and that the whites ought to get out. The attitude of the South African white people is that their only hope of survival is in being ready to fight. That is deplorable, but that is the way they see it. I think that the way in which they are handling matters will lead to disaster for them. The position in South Africa could cause serious trouble for the world, but we must at least recognize the point of view of the South African people and the difficulty with which they are faced. The United States of America has a colour problem, but it is of nothing like the proportions of the problem that exists in South Africa.

The question may well be asked: What is to be done there? Some people who do not live in South Africa are quite happy to say, “ Full rights for the blacks “. From a Christian and humane point of view, that attitude can be justified, but if we were South Africans, would we agree to granting full voting rights to the black people, which would mean that they would become the government of the country? Those are points that have to be considered. As I have said, I cannot see a solution of the problem unless it comes from an international organization and unless the white people in South Africa offer to co-operate with such an organization to try to settle the difficulty. If it comes to a clash between black and white, disaster for both sides is inevitable.

I wish to refer briefly to the recent alteration in the procedure for the meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I said last night that I could agree with some of the criticism of the statements made by Mr. Menzies but that I could not agree in any way with criticism of his stand on the question of whether the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conferences should have power to deal with the domestic problems of certain countries and, if necessary, to cause the exclusion from the Commonwealth of some of them. That is a very new and a very radical departure from previous practice. I believe that the people of this country would want to be consulted before Australia agreed to a radical change of that character. I go so far as to say, without any authority to do so other than my own judgment, that probably if a Labour government had been in office in Australia at the time of the recent Prime MinistersConference, it would have taken two looks at that matter.

Let us think of what could happen in other circumstances, leaving considerations of white Australia out of it What about western New Guinea? If a count of heads were to be taken, I should say that probably a majority of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers would be in favour of western New Guinea going to Indonesia. Would Australia be prepared to say, “ Well, that is all right “? What about eastern New Guinea? I think that a majority of the Prime Ministers probably would feel that we might very well get out of that area, too. Many of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are new to the game and have not a great deal of experience of such matters. If they are to be in the position in the future - as they obviously will be - to make decisions which may affect the future of countries where they themselves have no standing, that will be very dangerous. I think that the people of Australia will want to make a decision on such a policy before they agree to its future implementation.

Much has been said about the attitude of Mr. Macmillan. I think his attitude is easily explained. He is in a cleft stick. Because of the way in which world politics are weighted to-day, he has to try to get support in the United Nations of the Afro-Asian bloc. To my way of thinking, his position is perfectly clear. In trying to retain South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth and at the same time to retain the support of the Afro-Asian bloc, he was faced with an impossible situation. He probably welcomes what has happened because it at least gets him out of that impossible situation. He is now in a position to be able to say to the Afro-Asian bloc, “ Well, on South Africa I am clear “.

If we are in the future to deal with matters affecting the British Commonwealth on the basis of a consideration of the principles involved, I do not mind, so long as such a consideration of principles is extended to cover other organizations as well. If, on the ground of liberal and humane principles, South Africa has to go out of the British Commonwealth, well and good, but red China, on the same ground, also must stay out of the United Nations. I should even go so far as to say that, on present form. there might be an argument for the Victorian branch of the Australian Labour Party to be put out of the federal body - that is, if it is contended that its right to remain a part of that body depends on principles.

I proceed to the question of disarmament. We have heard and read some eloquent statements pointing out that if anything is to be done about disarmament, red China must be brought to the party. I am always in favour of negotiations with people with whom it is possible to negotiate, but I am opposed to negotiations with people with whom that is not possible. I should like somebody to inform me of any occasion on which red China has indicated that it is prepared to support disarmament. This issue is causing a very grave schism in the Communist world at present. Both red China and Russia have the same ultimate aim of world domination, but at the moment there is serious disagreement as to how world domination may be achieved. Khrushchev says: “Through co-existence. We will lull the democracies into a state of complacency. We will burrow into country after country, and eventually we will take over”. Mao Tse-tung says: “That idea is false to Leninist principles. An imperialist war is inevitable. Let us not gull the Communist people by telling them anything else. Let us go ahead “. That disagreement was brought out strongly at a recent conference of the Communist leaders of practically every Communist country in the world, when Russia tried to insist on its predominance in the determination of policies. In opposition to that insistence, we saw red China and Albania. For some strange reason, the press seems to be suppressing the fact that there was one other on the side of red China - the Australian Communist Party. In that party to-day there is a schism between those who say that the party should be loyal to Moscow and those who say that it should be loyal to Peking. Those who advocate loyalty to Peking have won and at the moment are engaged in expelling some of the ringleaders of the group which advocated loyalty to Moscow.

This disagreement between Russia and red China has even reached the stage at which Moscow is exercising economic sanctions against Albania for supporting

Peking. Some of the wheat that the Chinese recently bought from Australia has been sent to Albania to help that country to get over the economic sanctions imposed by Moscow because Albania opposed big brother. 1 was interested to read a comment on this matter in the journal of the Albanian resistance organization, published in Paris. This journal of free Albanians has communications with Albania, lt was stated that, due to the disruption caused by the communalizing of the farms, China had been forced to buy wheat from Australia and Canada and to stretch her hand to the Soviet Union for financial help. The journal stated -

Now it is learned that Khrushchev has advanced 40,000,000 pounds sterling to Mao to purchase this “ capitalist “ wheat, in return for some ideological concessions from the Chinese.

That is, they had to promise to get behind comrade Khrushchev on the ideological issue of co-existence or the imperialist war.

The question of whether the Chinese would co-operate in disarmament was answered for me the other day by an eminent authority on red China. He said, “ We have to get red China in for disarmament talks “. I said, “ Do you think the Chinese would be sincere”? He said, Certainly not “. I say that if we attempt to bring them into the disarmament talks, they will not come with the right spirit. They will use the talks to keep us quiet while they undermine us.

What about all the publicity on South Africa to-day? It is a bad thing, but it affects one part of the world. But while

We are getting all this publicity about what is happening in South Africa, where a couple of hundred people were killed at Sharpeville, there is practically no publicity about what is happening in other countries. Take South Viet Nam, which is trying to resist communism from North Viet Nam, which is supported by red China. There are between 400 and 500 casualties a week - people murdered by Communist guerrillas - on the northern borders of South Viet Nam, and we do not hear a word about it! We tend too much to-day to condemn western colonialism in every newspaper in the country and say nothing about Soviet colonialism. I have heard rumours to the effect that a member of this Parliament who was one of our representatives at the United Nations two or three months ago was muzzled when he said that he would go in and deal with Soviet colonialism in the same manner as the Communists were attacking western colonialism. Why are our newspapers full of news of South Africa, full of references to western colonialism and full of reports of all kinds of misdeeds attributed to it when an infinitely greater number of murders and repressions being committed by the Communist countries are being glossed over? Have we reached a stage that we accept what they do as the normal thing and spend all our time talking about what should be done in countries where we should have some influence?

All this publicity in one direction is having a bad effect. The captive nations of Poland and Hungary and the other captive nations of eastern Europe see what is happening and are led to the conclusion that they are being abandoned. The leaders of the world to-day worry about how they are going to oppose communism. I do not know that you will ever beat it by money or by guns or by tractors; only people will defeat communism. In the countries where the Soviet system prevails, there are millions of people living under communism who hate it and are prepared to fight it; they have already fought it in many cases. Yet under our system we say: “ Hush, hush about Soviet colonialism. Let us talk about western colonialism “. Those people in the captive countries will feel that we have abandoned them, and that is wrong because the existence of these people is the Achilles heel to-day of the new system.

I, therefore, suggest that in respect of disarmament the statements that have been made by the red Chinese leaders give us very little to hope for. Of course, our weakness in this respect has its effect upon such places as Laos. I have been looking at the cables and the stories that have appeared about Laos in recent weeks, and it is obvious to me that half-and-half agreements such as we had at Geneva in regard to Viet Nam are useless. We have requested the Communist leaders to make such an agreement in relation to Viet Nam and they have said, “Yes, we will do so, but in our own good time “. In the meantime, they are pouring in arms and instructors in order to put themselves in a position to be able to argue from strength. I can see what is happening. A few days ago I read a book by William Shirer. It is an American criticism covering the period before Munich. The story that he tells is somewhat similar to the story to-day in regard to Laos. The dictators, MaoTsetung and Khrushchev, are trading upon the natural dislike of the western people for war in order to place themselves in a position of power. The weaknesses of the democracies are to be seen in the Seato discussions. A statement was made by some who were there to show that Seato was not a paper tiger. In my view, those discussions show that it was a paper tiger - a tissue paper tiger. It was perfectly obvious that, faced with the question of opposing force with force, Seato was not prepared to do so. If it is not prepared to do so we can look forward to losing some of our Asian allies - the few that we have - from our camp. Naturally when they see where the strength lies, they will decide to make the best terms for themselves.

John Foster Dulles used to come in for a lot of criticism. People said that he was a typical hide-bound American who did not understand the world, but nobody could say that he did not run the risk of causing war by not letting the other side know where he stood. We have heard about wars caused because one side did not let the other side know where it stood. John Foster Dulles drew a line and said, “ If you go beyond that, we will fight “. The Communist leaders appreciated that directness, and despite all the criticism of him we have to admit that they made less progress in the period when he was on the job than they made before or have made since.

The trouble to-day is that if one talks about these things he is accused of being a warmonger or a red baiter. I do not mind that. I have been accused of it so often that I would be surprised if I were not. But let us look at the facts. Twenty years ago there were 170,000,000 people under Communist rule. To-day there are 986,000,000 people under Communist rule. The number is increasing all the time. If you are prepared to regard the remarks I have made as red baiting, all I can say is that you deserve all that you ultimately get. I believe that there is no substitute for strength. That is not warmongering, because experience in fighting dictators like Hitler and others in comparatively recent years has shown that there is less chance of a war if you stand up to them than if you give way to them.

I believe that it is right that the world, on moral principles, should condemn the happenings in South Africa, but I think that an inordinate amount of publicity is given to them while at the same time publicity is refused for happenings on the other side of the world.

I believe that in many respects the External Affairs portfolio is the most important portfolio in the Government to-day. I say so because I think that far more important than economic problems and a host of other problems is the problem of our future security, and that is dependent largely on our external relations. I believe that Australia is gravely disadvantaged when the Prime Minister also holds the portfolio of External Affairs. When he first took over that portfolio, I thought that that was merely a temporary arrangement, but it has gone on for a long time. I feel it should be said that Australia’s condition at the present time is such that it demands that the portfolios of Prime Minister and External Affairs should be in separate hands. The Prime Minister has very serious and weighty duties to perform. It is essential that he should be in this country as much as possible. I realize that it is necessary for him to go abroad at times and I approve of his doing so on duties connected with the office of Prime Minister. At the same time, I believe that foreign affairs are so important that we should have a Minister for External Affairs who can spend very considerable periods abroad, cementing our relations with other countries and working for world peace in the interests of Australia.

I conclude by saying once again that I regard the present world situation as extremely serious. I believe that we face very grave problems. I hope that the Government will consider my suggestion that Australia should have a Minister for External Affairs who can devote himself exclusively to that office.

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

– First of all, I compliment Senator McManus on his very valuable contribution to this debate. He made a highly interesting speech in which he got down to matters of fact and stated a case which, I think, has the approbation of the whole Senate.

I do not propose to discuss at any length matters connected with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ discussions in London and the South African embroglio generally. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a statement in another place which, in my opinion, left his critics for dead. His sterling character shines through his approach to this matter, his attitude at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference and the speeches which he delivered afterwards in London which have been the subject of criticism here. Mr. Menzies stood solidly against the system of apartheid and the evils which flow from it, but he refused - and rightly so - to join in a witchhunt against the South African nation. He made it clear that governments change but that nations go on. Political acts which render a government of a country subject to severe criticism do not necessarily repre-1 sent the general opinion of the people of that particular country. There is no certainty at all that the people of South Africa are 100 per cent, behind the Verwoerd Government in its rigid policy of apartheid, with all the extremes that go with it. Even in our own country, friendly as we have been to South Africa, we are bound to condemn that policy.

The Prime Minister did not fail to condemn in unmeasured terms those extremes of policy, but he had sufficient loyalty in his make-up to take into account that we owe a great deal to South Africa. South African troops, including Afrikanders, stood shoulder to shoulder with Australian troops in the fight for freedom against the Kaiser and his henchmen in the first world war and against Hitler in the second world war. You cannot dismiss that lightly and proceed to join in a witch-hunt against a great race of people, even though their government at this point of time has misled them and has not properly interpreted their true spirit. I admire the stand of the Prime Minister and uphold him against his critics. It took a man of sterling quality to express a very unpopular view, in the atmosphere prevailing at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference. He tried to steady the attack against South Africa down to principles of moderation and fair play.

As Senator McManus said this morning, in latter times there has been a tendency in our press and in public statements to soft-pedal on the extreme policies pursued by Communist countries. That soft-pedal is applied to Communist countries but South Africa is singled out and treated differently. Its faults are magnified and it is made to appear that this race of people is something apart. The Prime Minister, in my opinion, showed excellent qualities in standing up for the right as he saw it. I do not want to pursue that matter any further.

I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say on Tuesday evening that Australia’s policy on the subject of the recognition of Communist China and the admission of Communist China to the United Nations has not changed1 since Lord Casey, then Mr. Casey, made a full and ample statement in another place when he held the office of Minister for External Affairs. The statement of the Prime Minister was reassuring to us all in view of the changed attitude of Great Britain on this matter. I note that Lord Home, speaking in the House of Lords recently, urged support for the admission of Communist China to the United Nations. I take it that what Lord Home had to say in the House of Lords represents the present view of the British Government. If that is so, I am sorry, because I think that Great Britain, in adopting that stand is, to put it mildly, acting unwisely in view of the world conditions which prevail to-day. Great Britain, being in the European zone, is not so much within range of Communist Chinese moves as is Australia and may feel impelled therefore to adopt a different attitude. On the other hand, Australia, facing the realities of the situation in Asia, is bound to uphold and support the American decision to oppose the admission of Communist China to the United Nations.

Lord Home believes that the voices of the 650,000,000 Chinese in mainland China should be heard in the United Nations forum. If we could be sure that the voices of the 650,000,000 Chinese of mainland China, or the majority of them, would be heard at the United Nations forum, there might be something in the point that Lord Home makes. But, of course, it would be, not the voices of the majority of those 650,000,000 Chinese that would be heard at the United Nations, but the voice of the Communist clique of Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai, representing a limited number of the total population of Communist China to-day.

In its issue of 18th March last, the “Saturday Evening Post”, a journal published in the United States and which has a world-wide reputation and is widely read by thinkers and people who like to be kept abreast of the latest news behind the news, expressed what I consider is the joint American and Australian viewpoint. It stated -

The question is not whether the voice of Chinese mainland millions should be heard in the world’s councils because the voice of Mao Tse-tung is not the voice of the Chinese millions. The real issue is whether we are prepared to abandon our whole position in the Far East and the Western Pacific, an area essential to the forward defence of Alaska, Hawaii and the west coast of the United States of America. That is the minimum demand of the red Chinese, and it is a price we cannot pay.

I think most Australians will agree with that point of view. It does not matter very much what Britain or any of the other free nations of the world think about this matter because Communist China has made it expressly clear that she will not enter the United Nations as long as Taiwan remains in association with the free world. No matter how good are the intentions of Britain and other countries in the free world towards seating mainland China in the United Nations, the plain fact of the matter is that mainland China does not want to be seated there unless we abandon our positions of strength in Taiwan and the islands to the south of China and Japan - unless the American Seventh Fleet and American armed forces are removed from that area. The Chinese have laid down their conditions so it is no use coming out on a pleasant Sunday afternoon and declaring that we should give China a seat in the United Nations. China has clearly submitted her terms for entry to the United Nations. She will not enter, no matter who wants her to, unless we abandon Taiwan and all our military strength in that area. T do not think that any Australian would want the United States to do that.

The situation in Laos, which has been brewing for several years, raises the ques tion of Communist Chinese ambitions im South-East Asia and beyond. When Lord’. Montgomery visited Peking, Chou En-lai gave him an assurance that China must have peace. It is easy to make suchpleasant statements to a distinguished’ gentleman visiting Peking. We could say that Australia must have peace. Any country could say that it must have peace. But opposed to that statement by Chou En-lai we have the strongly held opinion of Mr. Frederick Nossal, who is correspondent for the Toronto “Globe and Mail “. Mr. Nossal spent five months in Peking last year and his very definite statement is that China’s policy is war. Her policy is war; not peace. I have no hesitation in saying that Chou En-lai misled the distinguished British Field-Marshal when he called on him in Peking last year. In a report appearing in the Brisbane “Courier-Mail” on 25th July, 1960, Mr. Nossal said -

During my last weeks in Peking I witnessed the emergence of the fatalistic world policy of global revolution which the Chinese leaders believe “ can be won quickly only by global - and if necessary nuclear - violence “.

When I was in Japan last year the “Japan Times” of 2nd October last - an excellent English-language publication - reported Communist China’s Foreign Minister Chen Yi as having called on the militia “ to get ready to defend their homes and motherland “. He said -

The Chinese people are determined to liberate their own territory of Taiwan.

He made that declaration as a curtain-raiser to the march of 500,000 of his countrymen through the Square of Heavenly Peace in Peking. He also said -

Tn order to defend the peaceful construction of our country and final unification of our Motherland all the officers and men of the people’s liberation army should further intensify political and military training and master modern military techniques and equipment. All militiamen, without affecting their production and studies, must intensify training and get ready.

The Communist Chinese leaders say that they have 3,000,000 men in their armed forces - men fully equipped and ready for the battle line. In addition, they have an independent force of 20,000,000 militiamen. Those would be men engaged in productive activities and in the pursuance of studies. but they may be called up for service and they regularly urdergo limited military exercises. Those are the men to whom -Chen Yi addressed his remarks. He exhorted them to get ready for the coming tasks of war.

It is obvious that sooner or later Communist China intends to move into Southeast. Asia. Indeed, the threat has already been made during the past few weeks that red China will intervene in the present Laotian crisis if the South-East Asia Treaty Organization puts armed forces into Laos. Red China hesitates to move large armies into South-East Asia while the powerful military bastion of Taiwan stands on her flank, supported by powerful American forces in the surrounding area. Communist China’s expansion into South-east Asia is pegged down by the strongly held island of Taiwan and the American air and naval strength in that vicinity. That is why the Chinese Communists so loudly denounce the United States and hurl abuse in one continuous stream of spiteful propaganda throughout Asia against the United States. China’s expansion into South-East Asia is is a thorn in her side. China cannot move large armies down into South-East Asia while Taiwan threatens her flank. That is why it is important that we should not recognize Communist China and give her a seat m tb United Nations at the expense of selling out the Government of Taiwan. That must not be done. It would be dreadful if Austral h were to join with any other country in recognizing red China on her terms, which -are that we must abandon Taiwan and hand it over to mainland China. In the present unsettled condition of the world this is a matter that must not be overlooked. It is imperative that every Australian should -stand four-square with the United States in maintaining American military strength in that part of Asia.

When I visited Hong Kong, Saigon, “Singapore and Colombo last year I found widespread, mistrust of red China and great fear of her military power and the eventual direction of its use.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator MAHER:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, Mr. Deputy President, I was saying that last year when I visited Hong Kong, Saigon, Singapore and Colombo I found widespread mistrust of red China amongst all classes of people whom I encountered, and a great fear of her military power and the eventual direction of its use. Highly intelligent men whom I met in South-East Asian cities and who have underground1 pipelines of communication with the Chinese mainland are positive that the blow would fall over the whole of South-East Asia if ever a massive assault on Taiwan, now in the course of preparation, were to succeed.

What I am about to mention is a small matter, but straws oft show how the wind doth blow. When I visited Colombo 1 read in the Ceylon “ Observer “ of 25th November last a report of a Ceylonese wedding which took place in Peking and which was attended by the Chinese Prime Minister, Chou En-lai, and the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Chen Yi. Miss Chinta, the daughter of the Ambassador for Ceylon, was married’ in Peking to a young lecturer of the Colombo university. He was a Ceylonesé gentleman of excellent standing. On account of the presence’ of such high functionaries as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of red China, the Peking press described this marriage as the wedding of the year. I thought it rather odd that the marriage of the daughter of the ambassador of a small country like Ceylon should have attracted the presence of two of the most powerful men of the Government of red China. I mentioned this to several Ceylonese gentlemen who were private citizens and who had no official connexion with the Government of Ceylon but who were well-informed about these matters. They told me that in their view the attendance of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Communist China at this wedding was an effort to curry favour with Ceylon, and to encourage Ceylonese neutrality if any war-like offensive were to occur, and also with an eye on the possible future use of Ceylonese airfields.

At the time of the “ wedding of the year” in Peking, Communist China was causing grave anxiety in India because of continuous violation of the Indian frontier by Chinese armed forces. At the same time official statements were issued by the Indian Government to the effect that aircraft which came from the direction of China had transgressed the air space over India on no fewer than 101 occasions.

The Chinese air violation of Indian territory greatly vexed the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, who is a mild-mannered man. Nevertheless he said, according to the Ceylon “ Daily News “ of 25th November last -

We are not only at liberty to shoot them down, but we will shoot them down.

On that occasion Mr. Nehru gave two separate warnings to Communist China within three days to the effect that further invading aircraft coming from the direction of China would be shot down. At the same time he made this rather significant remark -

The basic factor is the attitude of China - what the Chinese Government may have in its mind in the present and the future.

That was what was puzzling Mr. Nehru. Indeed, that is the great enigma for us all.

In the light of these events, I ask: What nation has taken the initiative in the buildup of military strength in northern Laos, using the northern Laotian Communist elements as the spearhead of what appears to me to be the beginning of a major military attack on Laos, Cambodia and South Viet Nam? Is North Viet Nam taking the initiative in this attack, is it Communist China, is it Soviet Russia or is it, as I believe, a combination of those three military powers? According to reports, Russia has consigned to Laos via the port of Hanoi enough military supplies to conduct a major war involving much bigger issues than the differences which exist at the present time in Laos. The Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “ of yesterday’s date published a telegram from Washington which stated that Russia has trebled its arms lift to the Laotian Communists within the last day or two - that is, since the return of Mr. Menzies to Australia from Bangkok. It would be interesting to know which of the Communist powers is paying Russia for the gigantic supplies of war materials and for the transportation and delivery services. If by any outside chance a cease-fire is negotiated and a neutral state is created in Laos, what will become of the enormous quantity of war material and other supplies which have been transported and have accumulated in the Plaines des Jarres in northern Laos? I again ask: What will become of all that surplus material if by any chance a negotiated settlement and the establishment of the neutrality of Laos is accomplished? Of course, I am not saying it will be accomplished.

The grim Communist pattern is there in, northern Laos for us all to see. The North. Vietnamese, that is the Viet Minh, have said for some years what they intend to do,, just as Hitler told us in his book “ Mein Kampf “ what he intended to do. Theworld disregarded what he said and the cynics said; “ He does not intend to do that. He would not be informing the world of his intention, surely.” They took no> notice. The North Vietnamese under theleadership of Ho Chi-minh have said for some years that they have a mission tomake revolution in Cambodia and Laos and1 to build the union of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. That is their declared aim. Unless they are stopped, all this territory and: its peoples could come under Communist domination, not by a vote of the peopleconcerned, but in the way suggested by Mao Tse-tung when he said “All powerflows from the barrel of a gun”. So it is well for us to recognize the Communist intention, long stated to the people of Asia and the rest of the world, to unify and subjugate the countries which I have enumerated - the old French Indo-China countries - by force and terror as is illustrated in the guerrilla tactics that are now being employed.

When I was in Saigon, South Viet Nam,, last year, leading citizens with some understanding of local politics informed me that red China varied its tactics in South-East Asia to suit local conditions. For example,, in Burma and Malaya the strategy at this, point of time involves polite and strictly correct relations. Indonesian Communists are directed to adopt legal methods and to avoid any open break with the Indonesian people at present. It is a case, to use an old Chinese expression, of “Softly, softly, catchee monkey “. In Thailand and South Viet Nam, the local Communists are under orders to embark on sabotage and subversive operations. Evidence of this policy can be seen in the guerrilla methods used’ last week in the elections in South Viet Nam. According to recent press reports, a train was wrecked, grenades and bombs were thrown, and generally efforts were made to prevent people in rural areas from recording their votes. In Laos, the direction from

Communist China to the Pathet Lao is to promote civil war. This is encouraged under the direction of Ho Chi-minh from Hanoi.

Speaking of Ho Chi-minh reminds me of an interesting sidelight contained in an article by Mr. Denis Warner, the well known and very reliable Australian correspondent on Asia. The article appeared in the Brisbane “ Courier Mail “ on 10th April, 1961. He wrote -

Ho Chi-minh, since 19SS, has received from Peking more than £160,000,000 in outright gifts and another £140,000,000 in long-term, low interest rates credit.

Yet we hear that Communist China wants credit for the purchase of our wheat. I say that Ho Chi-minh is a stooge of Peking and a very sinister figure in the Viet Nam area.

Senator Hannan:

– Is this Ho Chi-minh the man who is so beloved of Australian Broadcasting Commission commentators?

Senator MAHER:

– I cannot answer that. I would hate to think that any Australian radio commentator could see virtue in this political scoundrel. I found evidence everywhere of his character. He is held by those who have some understanding of right in South-East Asia to be a very sinister political figure. He was in Moscow in his earlier years. He has been indoctrinated and has studied Communist tactics and street fighting, to become an effective Communist Party member.

Senator Hannan:

– Has he been the leader over the last eight or ten years?

Senator MAHER:

– Yes. He is the man who promoted the war with France, the old power in Indo-China and, having been given particulars of guerrilla tactics by Mao Tse-tung, who applied them with the Communist Eighth Army when fighting against Chiang Kai-shek on the Chinese mainland, he used those tactics against the French. The French could not get the Communists out into the open and by degrees French ammunition stores disappeared and the French were driven back, defeated and forced out of the country. Ho Chi-minh is the dominating Communist in this part of the world. He has lived in Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong and North Viet Nam. He was responsible for the organization of Communist parties and cells in all these countries. Mr. Denis Warner states that he is to South-East Asian communism what Mao Tse-tung is to Chinese communism.

According to my Saigon friends, his particular dream and aim is to consolidate North and South Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand into one solid and compact Communist state. As he is now about 74 years of age, the feeling is that he wants to apply the pressure to achieve these ambitions before he moves out of this world. Once this has been achieved, Ho Chi-minh believes, Burma and Malaya will be ripe for the picking. They will not offer any resistance once he has a strong, compact Communist state comprising the countries that I have mentioned. I was informed that the overall objective of these movements is to widen the horizons of communism throughout the whole of Asia. In this morning’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ appears a gloomy statement made in Bangkok yesterday by the Prime Minister of Thailand, Field-Marshal Sarit Thanarat, to the effect that Thai troops had been sent to the Laos border to prevent any move by pro-Communist Laotians into Thailand. He said that there was no ceasefire and he went on to say that the Laotian Government may go at any time. That is the latest news on that front from the Prime Minister of Thailand. He said that there was little hope for a successful neutralist government for Laos, as such a government would eventually be taken over by the Communists. How very true!

The policies of Communist expansion in South-East Asia appear to be devised by Communist China, Viet Minh, and Soviet Russia acting in concert. There is no shortage of fighting men in Communist China or Viet Minh, whilst Soviet Russia is supplying war materials far beyond the needs of a localized civil war in Laos. In my view, the stage is being set for the fall of Laos. After consolidation of the Communist hold on that country, a move will be made against Cambodia, continuing gradually, when conditions are favorable, into South Viet Nam and Thailand. The Communists will be quite satisfied to settle for neutral governments so long as the Communists have control of key positions in such governments. It will not be long before there will be take-overs, after the fashion of the Australian commercial world. The Communists will take over from whatever rightist elements remain on deck in those countries. That is the pattern, and the Seato powers should do some very hard thinking before it is too late.

In my own way of assessing things, for several years I have tried to give Soviet Russia credit for peaceful intentions. It is difficult to reconcile Soviet Russia’s constant declarations for peace in the world with its actions. On all sides we hear that Russia stands for peace. That is the stock phrase of the Premier of Russia, Mr. Nikita Khrushchev. When I was in Ceylon, the Russian Ambassador waited on the Prime Minister of Ceylon, Mrs. Bandaranaike, and he conveyed to her a very cordial invitation from Mr. Khrushchev to pay a state visit to Moscow where he assured her the red carpet would be laid down for her and she would receive a very fine welcome. As reported in the Ceylon press, he went on to say that it was Mr. Khrushchev’s great joy to welcome nations dedicated to peace, as Russia is, and the Russians wished to have Ceylon represented in Moscow by its Prime Minister to pay tribute to her peaceful intentions.

There are all these messages of peace and goodwill in the world, but how do we assess them in the light of the fact that the Russians have lent their aircraft and ships for the transportation of war materials on such a vast scale that war can be promoted in South-East Asia and continued for a long time without supplementary supplies to carry on a war in that part of the world? That is one of the mysteries of life. In the world to-day, people can be carried away by the magic word “ peace “. Everybody wants peace. The Russians want peace in word but war in action. None of us should be misled by Russia’s advocacy of peace because when it suits them the Russians say they want peace, but when the time comes it suits them to provide the sinews of war.

Australia would like to see Laos and all the other South-East Asian states retain their independence and work out their own destinies by the free will of their people. However, following what 1 heard throughout the very interesting Asian trip I had last year, I greatly fear that Communist China, a proven aggressor, wants war. Mr. Nossal, whose article I quoted earlier, has said so. Communist China wants war and will embark on a major war when the time is considered propitious. This might well be the time. It is a strange coincidence that Soviet Russia, which Mr. Khrushchev says is dedicated to peace, is supplying enormous quantities of war materials and military supplies of every kind and sending fleets of Russian aircraft to transport those arms from Hanoi into the Plaines des Jarres in Northern Laos. It is strange that Russia is doing so at this time when -the Vietnamese are ready to expand and Communist China is probably on the verge of a big move.

Factors which the Chinese Communists will take into account in promoting war are, in my judgment, first, the explosive population pressures of 650,000,000 people. They need what Hitler called “Lebensraum “ - living room or elbow room. The second factor is the failure of the commune system; the third is food shortages on a vast scale occasioned by drought and the general failure of the Communist system; the fourth is the expansion of communism throughout Asia; and the last, for good measure, is the lust for power and fulfillment of ambitious plans to dominate the world.

I have no hesitation in saying that the amendment proposed by Senator McKenna, attacking Mr. Menzies personally and calling for censure and his removal from office, is a positive disgrace to the Labour Party. Mr. Menzies is one of the great men of the world, and Australians are proud of him. On numerous occasions he has represented Australia in other parts of the world with great credit to himself and high distinction. He is held in great respect and admiration in all the countries in which he has travelled. He is a great Australian. In my opinion, the amendment censuring the Australian Prime Minister and calling for his removal from office is a poor show indeed. I reject it absolutely and with scorn.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- This debate has been brought about by a paper which was tabled in another place and read in this chamber. A motion was proposed -

That the paper be printed, and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) moved an amendment which has been referred to, not altogether accurately, by Senator Maher. To my mind, the amendment pinpoints one important matter. This is not the first time that members of the Opposition have been concerned about the very important office of Minister for External Affairs. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) had devoted all his talents to one office, the trouble with which this country is beset in foreign affairs at present, and has been beset in the immediate past and a couple of years ago, might not have occurred. We believe that the office of Minister for External Affairs is very important. I think Senator McManus said that it was the most important office that any one could hold on behalf of Australia.

Senator Pearson:

– One man one job!

Senator KENNELLY:

– lt is a matter not of one man one job, but of one man devoting his full time to a full-time job. 1 believe that the office of Minister for External Affairs in this country should not be held by the person who is holding the office of Prime Minister. The former office is of vital importance in this changing world. Surely among the vast number of men on the Government side one man can be found who has the confidence of the Prime Minister so that he can say to that man: “ Here is the job. Go and do it.” I suppose that this is the first time since the office of Minister for External Affairs has been so vital to Australia as a whole that this position has arisen. When Labour was in office the Prime Minister was not also Minister for External Affairs.

Senator Kendall:

– But he was the

Treasurer.

Senator KENNELLY:

– In the Labour government the Prime Minister was also the Treasurer, but that did not take him out of the country as the portfolio of External Affairs does. If Mr. Menzies believed that his health was such that he could carry on as both Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs, there might not be reason to object on health grounds, but there could well be objection on policy grounds. This is not a personal matter so far as I am concerned. It is a matter of the utmost importance to Australia.

I am inclined to agree with Senator McManus that there is perhaps no more important portfolio than that of External Affairs. However, the best that can be said is that the duties of the position have been only a quarter done by the present Minister.

Perhaps that could not ‘be otherwise when the person who holds the portfolio also is the Leader of the Government and responsible to the nation for the economic troubles that we are experiencing at .the moment. He as the person to whom the people look for guidance. No one is so perfect that ho does not make mistakes at times. If the Treasurer of the day gets into troubled waters, as the present Treasurer apparently has during the last couple of months, when all is said and done it is the Prime Minister to whom the people .look for relief, because he is the leader of the Government.

If we trace the work of the Prime Minister during his period as Minister for External Affairs, surely it can be said that not toemany people are happy with it. Think of the tremendous faux pas that have been commited on behalf of this nation in the field of international affairs in recent years! Take, for instance, the Prime Minister’s role in the Suez Canal dispute, lt will bc remembered that he went to see President Nasser of Egypt, and we know the outcome of his visit. The Prime Minister took, or attempted to take, a most prominent part in what may be termed the ill-fated AngloFrench invasion of Egypt and the negotiations leading to it. It is most important that Australia should not be placed in such a position that its motives may be misunderstood by the Asian countries. We are a part of Asia. We have to be careful about the roles that we play in international affairs. Without giving away vital principles, we must always have at the back of our min<’ the question: How will this affect the Australian nation?

Every one knows that we got into extremely bad odour with certain nations because of the stand that the Prime Minister took on the Suez Canal dispute, although at that time he was not Minister for External Affairs. Mr. Casey, as he then was, held the portfolio. When the history of this country is written, it will be made known that Mr. Menzies and Mr. Casey did not see eye to eye on Suez. Mr. Menzies, being the boss, put Mr. Casey aside and stated his opinion. I think it can be said that no one knew that at the time. The Liberal Party did not know that two of the most important Ministers did not see eye to eye on that matter. Of course, the voice that went out as the voice of Australia was not that of

Mr. Casey. It was the voice of Mr. Menzies. We got in bad, if I may use that term, with the Afro-Asian bloc on that question.

Then, Mr. Menzies went to the United Nations at New York. I think I am correct in saying that the present Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) was first selected to go there and speak for Australia; but of course, the boss came along later. The Attorney-General was pushed to one side. Can it be said that the actions of the Prime Minister at the United Nations helped Australia? Can it be said that he helped to take advantage of the opportunity to get the big nations together, which we all wanted? By the “ big nations “ I refer, of course, to the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Russia. Mr. Nehru and other Asian leaders submitted a resolution for the purpose of securing a toplevel meeting of world leaders, but Mr. Menzies came in with a contrary resolution. I doubt whether an Australian Prime Minister has ever been torn to tatters as Mr. Menzies was by Mr. Nehru, who followed him. That was said by the New York *’ Times “.

Senator Kendall:

– Nehru withdrew his resolution. "”Senator KENNELLY. - But not because of Mr. Menzies’ speech. I have had considerable experience of settling disputes, and I know that the only way that most disputes can be settled is to keep the parties talking. The moment that Jim Brown gets into the back room and Jack Smith into the front room and they will not talk to one another, the prospect of settling the dispute becomes very remote. I know that that is certainly so in relation to disputes in the Australian industrial field, and I have no doubt that the same principle applies in wider field’s. I think that the only way in which international disputes can be settled is to keep the parties talking for as long as possible.

Senator Gorton:

– Just to keep the record straight, I point out that it was not the New York “Times” that used the phrase the honorable senator has attributed to it. It was used by Zeil Rabin, Australian correspondent in America of the Sydney “Daily Mirror”.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honorable senator had his opportunity to speak. The fact is that the statement was made.

Senator Gorton:

– By Zeil Rabin.

Senator KENNELLY:

– It was said, and it was not a good advertisement for the man who has led Australia as Prime Minister over a period of years. The actions of the Prime Minister at the United Nations did no good at all. He made one of those famous speeches of his, attacking the Communist line. I do not mind people attacking the Communist ideology. I would never support it myself, but there is a time and a place for such attacks. It is all very well for Mr. Menzies, in the party room or in the House of Representatives, where he has an abundance of supporters, to get up and make a speech of that kind. Of course, he is applauded when he does so. He will get applause whatever he says. He will certainly get it on what has been your election winner since 1920, and no doubt if you win next time that will be the issue.

I have nothing personal whatsoever against the Prime Minister of this country. We have always been friends outside the Parliament, and I respect him. I have sat on certain committees with him in Melbourne, although admittedly the many duties of his office do not permit him to attend the meetings frequently. He is a respected member of the trustees of the Melbourne Cricket Ground, and no doubt when he has had time to give the trustees advice it has been a great help to them. But I am thinking of this country, and although honorable senators on the other side will not agree with what the Prime Minister has done, they are afraid to get up and disagree with him openly. I have quoted two factual instances. Have they helped this country? That is all that matters to me. All of us are here to benefit our people and our country, and after doing that I do not mind helping any one else that I can help. The Prime Minister is the leader of the people - the nation’s leader - because they have voted for him, and he should show some qualities of leadership in world affairs. I defy any honorable senator on the other side to get up and say that what the Prime Minister did in the two instances I have quoted was in the best interests of the people of this nation.

Senator Pearson:

– The people still voted for him.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Of course they will vote for him! You are not here, my friend, because of what Mr. Menzies does. You ought to know that. You are here because every newspaper owner or proprietor gets a knighthood - for what service to this nation, I do not know. You are here also because my erstwhile friends in the corner give you their second preference votes. That is the factual position, stripped of all the niceties. That is why you are where you are at present. But we will not be lackeys for the Melbourne “ Herald “, the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ or any other newspaper. We have a policy to which we adhere, whether or not the newspapers like it.

I come now to the question of South Africa, which was the main subject that was dealt with in the Prime Minister’s speech. What amused me yesterday was the fact that, although the subject of apartheid has been prominent for quite a long time, this debate has been the first occasion on which honorable senators opposite have said where they stand in this matter. In the past they have waited for the oracle to speak. But from what the oracle himself said at the Savoy Hotel, I am not sure whether he knew where he stood on this very important question. Referring to apartheid, he said -

I just want to say this. My objection to the policy of apartheid is in simple terms that in my opinion it will not work.

There was no principle involved. The implication of his remarks was that if apartheid worked it would be good-oh. I am quoting the Prime Minister’s exact words as set out in official documents that someone was kind enough to hand to me; I do not often get them. His speech was made on Sunday, 19th March, at the Savoy Hotel. Therefore, from the Prime Minister’s point of view, it is not a matter of whether apartheid is a right principle or a wrong principle. I repeat what Mr. Menzies said -

My objection to the policy of apartheid is in simple terms that in my opinion it will not work.

That was his opinion, Therefore, if apartheid worked, he would think that it was all right. If it worked, good-oh. But it will not work! And then the supporters of the Government - not the little people but the top brass, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - got up and said they were opposed to apartheid.

Why have they not said this before? The answer is that the Prime Minister had not so spoken before. Let us trace the history of this matter.

Senator Gorton:

– Yes, let us have a look at it.

Senator KENNELLY:

– When did you, my worthy Minister, ever get up in this chamber and say that you opposed apartheid?

Senator Gorton:

– The Prime Minister got up in the other House during the debate on the incidents at Sharpeville and, speaking for all Ministers, made the Government’s position clear.

Senator KENNELLY:

– It is only on rare occasions that I am not present at the parliamentary sittings, but I read the reports of the proceedings. I have no recollection of that happening, but I shall check what the Minister has said.

Senator Gorton:

– You might listen.

Senator KENNELLY:

– And the Minister might listen. Not until yesterday did the supporters of the Government get up one after another and say that they were opposed to apartheid. In view of their previous attitude, I never thought that I would hear mature men in this National Parliament do that. I do not know how they will get on about this because their chief has not said that he is opposed to apartheid. All that he said was that in his opinion it would not work. Now, honorable senators opposite in an endeavour to get on the band wagon are opposing apartheid.

Supporters of the Government have stated that South Africa was put out of the Commonwealth. I regret that South Africa is out of the Commonwealth and I think that the attitude it took was stupid. However, the fact is that she walked out.

Senator Gorton:

– She was put out.

Senator KENNELLY:

– She was not put out. I invite Senator Gorton to produce proof of a vote on the issue. South Africa applied to remain in the Commonwealth after its status was changed to that of a republic. Later it withdrew its application. Of course, the South African Prime Minister might have been shrewd. He might have known that the numbers were against him and, after all, who knows more about numbers than my friend, the Minister for the

Navy - not that he has too many personnel in the Navy, judging from the advertisements I have seen on television.

Senator Gorton:

– We get our recruits.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have seen a lot of advertisements headed, “ Join the Army I did not know whether you were chasing recruits. I should like to know how much money you are paying for those advertisements, but no doubt we will find that out later.

I suppose that in the Western world the occurrence at Sharpeville is one of the worst episodes that modern history will record.

Senator Kendall:

– Why do you not compare it with what happened in Hungary?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not justifying what happened in Hungary.

Senator Kendall:

– You did.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I never did and I never will.

Senator Hannan:

– You did not attack what happened in Hungary.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Honorable senators opposite do not stress how bad the incident at Sharpeville was; instead, they tura their attention to Hungary. The party which I represent has already condemned what happened in Hungary.

Senator Hannan:

– No, it did not.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, it did.

Senator Hannan:

– When did the Labour Party condemn what happened in Hungary?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Immediately after those events occurred.

Senator Mattner:

– Not in this chamber.

Senator KENNELLY:

– We condemned it officially.

Senator Hannan:

– You would not be game to do so.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not, like the. honorable senator, worried only over a woman who used to throw a discus and wanted to inspect women’s hats. That was the most stupid, idiotic thing I have ever heard of. That happened some years ago.

I pass on. Even after Sharpeville, there was no denouncement of apartheid by this Government, although the events at Sharpeville shocked the world. The Government is now, at last, prepared to state where it stands, but we would like to know why it was so silent before.

Senator Gorton:

– What silence are you referring to?

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Government made no statement about where it stood in regard to the principle of apartheid. When I refer to the speech made by the Prime Minister at the Savoy Hotel in London, I find that he was not against apartheid in principle. He was against it only because it would not work. In the paper that the Prime Minister presented to the Parliament, giving a report of his trip abroad, he attempted to justify the attitude that he took then. Government supporters who have spoken in this debate have said that there is no difference between the opinions expressed earlier and those expressed now. I suppose that one of the greatest supporters of the Government is the Melbourne “ Herald “. I wish to refer to a leading article that appeared in that newspaper. How it got there without being seen by some of the friends of the Prime Minister, I do not know, but it is there. It has been suggested that there has been no alteration of the views of the Government, but anybody who reads Mr. Hood’s speech in the United Nations on the two resolutions that were submitted in connexion with South Africa can arrive at only one conclusion, namely, that the Australian representative spoke one way and voted another. Of course, that is not an uncommon thing with some of my friends opposite.

What has been Australia’s attitude in the United Nations as far as South Africa is concerned? Our representative has either voted with South Africa or has not voted at all. People who do not vote demonstrate a lack of courage for which I have nothing but contempt. The Melbourne “ Herald “, the greatest supporter of the Government, had this to say -

Previously, in the U.N., Australia had always stood with South Africa or abstained from voting on racial issues. This time, after an urgentlysummoned Cabinet meeting following a British change of front, Australia voted for the milder of two resolutions deploring apartheid. It was hair-splitting to say that Mr. Hood, speaking for Australia in the U.N., had not announced bow Australia would vote. Mr. Hood certainly spoke against the motion which we subsequently supported, and Australia’s last record on this issue would have led most people to believe that our policy had not been changed.

Senator Mattner:

– Will you quote Mr. Hood’s speech?

Senator KENNELLY:

– If my friend

Opposite were to quote against me the “ Worker “ - the main trade union journal - or “ Labour “ I would take notice of what was said in it. The “ Worker “ and “ Labour “ support Labour policy in the same way as the Melbourne “ Herald “ supports the policy of the present Government. That newspaper, the Government’s greatest supporter, printed what I have just read - and I do not think it ever goes out of its way to harm the Government. On this occasion it says that the Government spoke in one way and voted in another.

Let me refer now to what Mr. Macmillan said. These are his words -

May I say in passing that I do not at all accept the view-

He was referring to the view expressed by Mr. Menzies - which I have seen expressed in the last few days, that this means that the Commonwealth will in future turn itself into a body passing judgment on the internal affairs of particular countries. But the fundamental differences between South African philosophy and ours is that we are trying to escape from these inherited practices.

Some people say that South Africa was put out. Mr. Menzies says that it was forced out. This is what Mr. Macmillan had to say on the subject -

I am convinced, and I must say this, that had Dr. Verwoerd shown the smallest move towards an understanding of the views of his Commonwealth colleagues, or made any concessions, had he given us anything to hold on to, or any grounds for hope, I still think that the conference would have looked beyond immediate difficulties to the possibilities of the future.

I am trying to hurry through my speech, without taking as long as I expected to take when I commenced. I regret that South Africa has left the Commonwealth. I believe that world opinion will force South Africa to change its policy. It is interesting to read that the Transvaal newspaper of which the Prime Minister of South Africa was the editor before he entered the South African Parliament - and which has been his supporter during all his political life - has, within the last week, changed its attitude towards the policy of apartheid. I believe that the policy of the South African Government will change. In a changing world, there is no place for apartheid. I believe that countries having mixed populations must find a better and more humane approach to their problems than the policies adopted by South Africa. But my principal concern in this matter is for Australia. I deplore the fact that we have not got a Minister for External Affairs whose entire energies are devoted to external affairs. However much I may have disagreed with the policies advanced by Lord Casey when he was Minister for External Affairs, at least he devoted his entire energies to the job. The job of Minister for External Affairs is an onerous one. He is called upon to be away from Australia .for nine or ten months of the year. I would not be surprised if for the major portion of that time he was accompanied by his wife, nor would I quarrel with that practice. But surely no honorable senator opposite can be satisfied with the present position. Our present Minister for External Affairs is required to rush abroad for three or four weeks at a time and to pit his brain, no matter how big it may be, against those of men trained in diplomacy and devoting their full time to it, and as a result I believe that Australia has been left lamenting. The sooner we have a separate Minister for External Affairs the better for Australia and for our Prime Minister also. Although I disagree with Mr. Menzies’s politics, I would not like to see him, after such a long time in office, go out of public life branded as something of a misfit. I do not think even his most ardent supporters will claim that his utterances in recent times have enhanced his reputation. Nor have they enhanced Australia’s reputation. The world to-day is a troubled place and Australia must play her part in its affairs, however small that part may be. If the amendment now before the Senate achieves no other purpose I hope that it will bring vividly to the Prime Minister a realization that he cannot continue to hold his two portfolios with satisfaction to himself and credit to Australia.

Senator BUTTFIELD:
South Australia

– Let me begin by saying that I oppose most strongly the amendment moved by the Opposition. I thought that Senator Kennelly’s closing remarks were quite incredible. To say that the Prime Minis. er

Oi Australia has not brought credit on this country by his performances .overseas on our behalf is too ridiculous to dwell upon. Mr. Menzies has indeed brought great credit on Australia. He is a great leader. Australia has been most fortunate in that he has been willing to saddle himself with the added burden of the external affairs portfolio, lt is vitally important that the Prime Minister should take a close interes in international affairs, involving as they do the peace of the world. Being a good leader, our Prime Minister has done what all good leaders do. He has delegated many of his tasks in international affairs. Thank goodness he has done so, because that has enabled one of his Ministers in the Senate to handle certain matters relating to international affairs, to the very great advantage of the Senate.

I pay a tribute also to the Russian scientists who have now accomplished thcwonderful achievement of putting a moi into space. 1 would even extend my tribute to the Communist Party of Russia, which has perhaps made this achievement possible. Honorable senators opposite are interjecting. I am not so narrow that I cannot pay tribute where it is due. I think it is incredible that a nation which was almost completely illiterate a decade ago should now be able to send a man into space and return him to earth. But this achievement has been possible only because Russia has deprived her people of the material benefits of life and has channelled all available resources into education. Her achievement proves what can be done if all a country’s resources are channelled into one field. Russia has don? a remarkable job of educating her people. She has concentrated her energies in education mainly on the sciences, and her efforts in the scientific field have been devoted almost exclusively towards the perfection of ballistic missiles.

Senator Gorton:

– Scientific education has been available to only a limited number of her people.

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– Most of Russia’s brilliant students are sent through the Moscow University, which is an incredible place. The cost of building the university was about £250,000,000. The university devotes its resources to the particular branch of science to which I have referred. It is equipped with nearly 2,000 laboratories; but it has no engineering faculty and no medical faculty. Russia is simply bent on gaining world adulation for her achievements in this one field of science. Those achievements may impress some neutralist nations that Russia is out to impress, but it is plain to anybody that Russia is achieving miracles in only one field. If one visits Russia one finds that the other fields of science are virtually neglected. I wish Russia would approach with as much singleness of purpose the task of making realistic her slogans about peace, disarmament and co-existence. Russia is not genuine when she talks about these things. Such talk is merely a front to hide her infiltration and subversion of the free world because she believes implicitly that communism will rule the world. She believes that she has the key that will open the way for capitalism ultimately to destroy itself, and she is prepared to wait for that destruction to come about by so-called peaceful coexistence. Under the veil of co-existence Russia intends to hasten by subversion the destruction of the democratic way of life in the western world.

I agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that disarmament talks - Summit talks - should be supported by the evidence of experts and that any agreement on disarmament should be accompanied by effective controls and inspections. Any propositions for disarmament submitted by the Russians have never included provisions for effective inspections. This proves that Russia is not genuine in wanting to disarm. Certainly she would like to reduce some of her commitments in the field of armaments. This would enable her to devote her resources very usefully in other directions for her own purpose. We must ensure that any agreement entered into to disarm is an equitable one. 1 hope that the South-East Asia Treaty Organization powers will be able to achieve a settlement of the trouble in Laos. We see there the typical pattern of Communist aggression. The Communists have entrenched themselves behind a weak, neutralist government. With the aid of

Pathet Lao troops the Russians have supported a weak government and now they are reinforcing those troops and sending the Loyalist forces further south. The longer an agreement is postponed the stronger will be the position in which the Communists will be placed to negotiate. I hope agreement will be arrived at very shortly, because the situation would be extremely serious if the Communist powers were to gain further control in Laos. Even with the control they have now, they are beginning to infiltrate the countries which surround Laos. On a long-term basis, it is vital to Australia that agreement should be reached in Laos and that we should endeavour to allow that country to be completely neutral.

It is equally important that we should have a strong Commonwealth of Nations. The Seato powers are our friends; they are helping to resist Communist aggression in the areas to our near north. I repeat that it is equally important that the Commonwealth family of countries should be strong. That is why I join with those who say that they are sad at the fact that one member of the British Commonwealth has been allowed to withdraw from the family. I have no sympathy with a parent who cuts off an erring child just because he does not agree with what that child is doing. That is the very time at which the family should exercise its persuasive powers. I believe the same thing applies to the South Africans. Even if we do not agree with what they are doing, perhaps by keeping them in the Commonwealth we could try to persuade them to abandon the application of their policies. I was amazed to hear Senator Kennelly say that this debate has been the first occasion on which we have risen and declared our disapproval of apartheid as it is applied in South Africa. I emphasize those last few words - as it is applied. At the time of the Sharpeville incident many speakers said that they disapproved of the way in which these policies were being applied. We did not continue - I believe rightly - to condemn South Africa vocally, because we hoped that we would be able to persuade South Africa to abandon her policies and to remain within the Commonwealth. We did not believe that we would be able to exercise any persuasion if we were continually to condemn her.

Our Prime Minister was one of the few Prime Ministers who refrained from loudly condemning South Africa. His action has proved to be right, because he has been able to work with South Africa and to have her representatives listen to him. He almost succeeded in keeping South Africa within the Commonwealth. It is tragic that his efforts were defeated by those who said that, even if South Africa did agree to the communique that was to have been issued, they would continue to try to have her pushed out of the Commonwealth. That is why there has been what has appeared to be a period of silence. But that period of silence has been used to talk quietly with the South African people.

It was incredible to hear Senator Kennelly attack the press, which in this case has taken on the role that should have been accepted by the Opposition - that of being an effective opposition in a democratic parliament. The Opposition has been so busy with its own preoccupations that it has not been opposing in the Parliament as it ought to have been. I believe it is for that reason that the press has adopted the role of an opposition. Perhaps in a sense it has done democracy a good turn. But on this occasion I think it has taken its responsibility a little too seriously and through wrong emphasis and unfair criticism has done a disservice to Australia overseas. I have just used the term “ wrong emphasis “. That leads me to say that I was amazed to hear Senator Kennelly also place what has proved to be wrong emphasis on remarks that have been made by the Prime Minister. The honorable senator said that the Prime Minister had stated that his objection to the policy of apartheid was that it would not work. The honorable senator did not read what the Prime Minister went on to say. The Prime Minister added -

It is a policy of separate development. It is a policy that the white man occupies a superior position. In other words, it is the same policy which existed in all colonial establishments until a few years ago.

The Prime Minister stipulated that he had refrained from moralizing, but he has given practical reasons why the policy of apartheid will not work.

I should like to devote most of the time at my disposal to the unfair criticisms that have been made. The press has said that

Australia and the Australian Prime Minister waited too long to express their disapproval. I say that the Prime Minister did not wait too long. In his press statement, which was made two days after the conference in London, he indicated quite clearly that he had objected to the policy of apartheid. At the Australian Club dinner on the following night he again said, “ I do not agree with this policy “. He has also indicated that at the conference he joined with other Prime Ministers in expressing criticism of South Africa’s policies. He certainly has stated that we do not approve of the way in which the South Africans are applying their policies.

I do not believe that the policy of separate development - that is what “ apartheid “ means - -is a matter for moral judgment. We who live at such a great distance from such countries cannot possibly expect to know the difficulties that are experienced in South Africa where there are 11,000,000 Bantu and other coloured people but only 3,000,000 white people. If the South Africans say that it is imperative to have separate development, I do not think it is for us to say that that is immoral. What we do say is that the way in which they are applying their policies is immoral and that they are contravening the Declaration of Human Rights. I do not believe that a policy of separate development is brought on by a government. I believe that the races themselves within a ‘country begin automatically to separate themselves. We see it happening in many countries. It is happening in the United Kingdom. ‘Many West Indians have gone to the United Kingdom, but they are not mixing with ‘the English people. If one goes to a place like Birmingham, one finds that one public house is entirely set aside for West Indians and that another is kept entirely separate for the English people. It is quite a natural reaction for people of different races to cleave “together. Even in our own country the national groups enjoy getting together; it is quite natural. We as Australians would do the same thing if we were to go to Europe or any other country. But in Australia the Department df Immigration and the Government is endeavouring to break down this natural human reaction to cleave together and to help the newcomers to be assimilated with the Australian people.

The tendency for people to cleave together and the consequent difficulties were brought home to me very clearly in Malaya. I saw what racial cleavage meant when I visited a new hospital in which it had been necessary to build three separate kitchens to cater for the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians. None of these groups would eat the food that the others ate. That is one illustration of the way in which races do stick together .and separate themselves from others because they have different customs and habits.

The next criticism that was hurled at the Prime Minister was that he directed attention to our immigration policy by wrongly equating it with South Africa’s policy. He equated our policy not only with that of South Africa but also with those of other Commonwealth countries where there are various internal difficulties. It is not the custom for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to criticize such policies. He drew a parallel between our policy and that of many other countries. He said -

It is as much a matter of domestic policy for South Africa as Australia’s migration policy is a domestic matter for us.

He went on to say -

We may object very strongly to racial discrimination practised in one country. We might equally object very strongly to the absence of any form of democracy in another; we might take exception to the absence of parliamentary machinery, or the presence of imprisonment withour trial; or any of these things . . .

All those conditions exist within the various Commonwealth countries.

That was what he was equating our immigration policy to. I think that he did a great service to Australia in directing attention to our immigration policy. It is a good policy which will stand up to any examination. When I have been in Asian countries I have met with criticism, which I believe is being stimulated by Communists to create dissension and dislike for us in those countries. But as soon as I, or others, have explained our policy, Asians have agreed that it is perfectly reasonable and that we have every right to aim for a homogeneous society. They do exactly the same thing themselves. What we want, and what the Prime Minister has achieved m directing attention to our policy, is a better appreciation df our policy. Many people do not understand it. “They think it is a racial policy based on colour, but it is not. I have not time now to go into the policy, but if people will examine it they will see that it can stand up to any kind of criticism.

I was amazed to hear Senator McManus, who I know takes a great deal of interest in the immigration policy, say that our legislation refers to white Australia - in other words, that it is on a colour basis. That is completely incorrect. Our legislation does not refer at all to colour and neither do any of the departmental documents. They refer to the established immigration policy, which is an entirely different matter. I should like it to be well known that none of our legislation refers to a white Australia, as suggested by Senator McManus. We have no colour consciousness in this country. That is well illustrated by the many Asian students and other Asian people who are in this country and who mix very well and happily with our people. We have not a colour consciousness, and we do not want it. Our immigration policy is designed to prevent such a condition occurring.

The fourth criticism of the Prime Minister was that he disagreed with the United Kingdom Prime Minister. It is said that he disagreed on two premises. One of these, I consider, relates to an interpretation of words. The British Prime Minister said that there was no expulsion of South Africa. Our Prime Minister said that Dr. Verwoerd was pushed out. It is merely a matter of the interpretation of words. There was no compulsory expulsion, but the South African Prime Minister was made to feel so unwelcome that he withdrew his application to remain. It was an application, not to come into the Commonwealth, but to remain in it. He withdrew his application because he was made to feel unwelcome. The other criticism was over a matter of opinion, as to whether the Commonwealth was weakened by this withdrawal. I believe that it has been. Our Prime Minister said that he thought that the Commonwealth had been weakened, but Mr. Macmillan said that he did not think it was. After all, we must remember that Mr. Macmillan represents the leading light in the Commonwealth. If he had suggested that the Commonwealth was weakened and perhaps in danger of crumbling, what hope would there have been of holding it together? The very fact that he came out strongly and said that it had not been weakened was an indication that he was looking to the future in the hope of holding it together.

The final criticism is that there has been a switch in policy. I think that the press has succeeded in confusing the position in the minds of the public, even if it has not been itself confused. There is a vital difference between what we do, what we say and how we vote in the United Nations and in the Commonwealth of Nations. The United Nations is the correct place in which to criticize, if we think that a country is contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The resolution which was proposed by the 25 nations, with which we disagreed and against which we voted, was for the imposition of sanctions, not against the South African Government but against the 14,000,000 people who live in South Africa, the bulk of whom are coloured people who make many of the goods which would be boycotted if sanctions were introduced. We did not agree with that course. We have said on many occasions that we do not agree with it.

That is where confusion has crept in. The manner in which we vote is determined entirely by the way in which resolutions are worded. We voted in the United Nations against the imposition of sanctions. We have not at any time voted against expressions of disagreement with South Africa’s policies. On this occasion, a more moderate resolution was introduced by four nations, including Ceylon and Malaya. We felt we could express our disagreement with the application of apartheid by voting for the resolution but abstaining when a vote was taken on two paragraphs in which there was a suggestion that sanctions might be applied and that South Africa’s policies were a danger to the peace and security of the world. We did not think that those paragraphs were reasonable and we abstained from voting for them. We clearly said that we disapproved of the South African policies.

The United Nations, not the Commonwealth of Nations, was the right place at which to express those views. It has always been agreed that internal policies within the Commonwealth would not be discussed at Commonwealth conferences and that there would be no judgment on the way in which members were conducting their internal affairs. It is tragic that that free association and informality, and the convention that one does not condemn fellow members of a family, have now gone. There will no longer be the same informal attitude in the discussions. I for one think that it was a great mistake that a communique’ was ever issued by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. From issuing that communique, the trouble has begun. I cannot help believing that with the forcing of South Africa out of the Commonwealth, not only has the Commonwealth been weakened but also Australia has lost a friend, and we, in our isolated position in the world, can ill afford to lose any friends.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I listened with interest to Senator Buttfield1. I sincerely agree that Australia cannot afford to lose friends. The aspect that has given concern to the Opposition is that in relatively recent times, dating from the time when Mr. R. G. Casey, as he then was, relinquished the External Affairs portfolio, Australia has lost many friends. Even prior to that, we lost friends as a result of the Prime Minister’s interference in external affairs, when he intruded into the Suez Canal dispute, which was most highly controversial, and came out with very poor grace. I think the position well merits the Senate’s endorsement of the Opposition’s amendment, which is in the following terms: -

In the opinion of this Senate, the speeches and statements made by the Prime Minister on the question of South Africa, following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference, have done great harm to Australia’s relations with other member States of the Commonwealth, and with the nations of South-East Asia; have aggravated the position he created at the United Nations meeting in October last year; and do not represent the views of the Australian people.

The Senate- resolves, therefore, that as Minister of State for External Affairs he should be censured and considers that he should be removed from that office.

That relates to the portfolio of Minister for External Affairs. Quite recently, I had the honour and1 pleasure of travelling abroad as a representative of this Parliament on business connected with the InterParliamentary Union, which made necessary the* closest co-operation between, repre sentatives of the British- Commonwealth of Nations. We found no need to justify Australian internal policies or to throw them into the ring for open debate. They were not under discussion.

I found it most embarrassing that criticism of the Prime Minister’s occupancy of the position of Minister for External Affairs was more severe outside than inside Australia. He was criticized by our friends, although not openly, and on every occasion on which the matter came under discussion the weight of opinion was heavily against the Prime Minister occupying the two positions. That was the attitude of every set of representatives of British Commonwealth countries to whom I spoke. I did not do as the Government has done - wait until the horse has got out of the stable and then try desperately to close the door. The first question I asked in the Senate after I arrived back in Australia was in these terms -

I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, ls the Government just as embarrassed as are Australians overseas and within Australia as a result of the Government’s neglect to make an appointment to the important position of Minister for External Affairs? Is the inordinate delay which has occurred in making an appointment to this important position since it was vacated by Lord Casey an indication that the Government has not sufficient confidence in the personnel available to if to make such an appointment? As the work of this portfolio has been left in abeyance during a. period when there have been very important international developments, will the Minister inform the Senate whether Australia can expect to have very shortly a leader for the leaderless legion- of the department that deals with foreign affairs? Will he endeavour to have a statement made by the Government outlining the policy that has been applied in relation to the many important developments in international affairs that have occurred since Mr. Casey was elevated to the peerage and: took his place: in the House of Lords?

The reply made by Senator Spooner was -

With Senator Cooke, the wish is father to the thought. He’ only Hopes that the views he has expressed, are correct. Deep in his heart, he knows, as do the rest of us, that there is complete confidence in the present administration of the Department of External Affairs.

The answer completely evaded the question. It was quite obvious that the position was embarrassing and generally disapproved of. L know quite well that- the- administration by the Prime Miniates -of the Department of External Affairs caused embarrassment and discussion in the ranks of the Government.

The Prime Minister, acting in the capacity of Minister for External Affairs, has attended two overseas conferences and has vacillated just as greatly in his external affairs policy as the Government has vacillated in its economic and social policies. The Government increased sales tax on motor vehicles for a couple of months and then took off the new imposition. The Government applied a credit squeeze and then relaxed it in certain directions. The Prime Minister has vacillated just as much in his external affairs policy. He has a policy and then no policy. He has made statements and then changed his views.

He is a legal gentleman and I think he considers many external- affairs matters more with a legal mind than the mind of the representative of a country. He would appreciate the old adage that a solicitor who takes a brief for his own case has a fool for a client. The position can be put this way. The Minister for External Affairs goes overseas and negotiates, and he has the responsibility of reporting to the Parliament the results of his missions. The Prime Minister, the Parliament and the Government of the nation are then in a position to analyse his actions and declare their attitude to them. The Minister makes a decision and waits for it to be confirmed. But what have we done? We have sent the Prime Minister abroad and he has committed Australia irrevocably not just on one occasion, but on many occasions. It is sad to think that the Government and Parliament of this nation have not had an opportunity to declare their attitude at all and that terrible damage has been done.

Much of this debate has centred on the white Australia policy. The question which has not been answered by any Minister or even the Prime Minister himself is why he should make the white Australia policy the subject of a debate in an international conference, whether it be the United Nations or the British Commonwealth of Nations, and put it in the same category as apartheid in order to justify his own wrong arguments when there is no relation between apartheid and Australia’s immigration policy. Why was the subject ever brought into the debate? The white

Australia policy was not under discussion and it was not being compared with apartheid. It was not challenged. Why did he, with his trained legal mind, bring the internal policies of other countries into the debate?

Senator Mattner:

– He did not do that.

Senator COOKE:

– The honorable senator says that he did not do that, but it is pretty well accepted that be did. It is said that there were no differences of opinion between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and our Prime Minister. It is quite obvious that there were differences at the time of the discussions and afterwards. The claim has been made that the stand taken by the Prime Minister was quite justified because apartheid is an internal policy of South Africa and it is the application of the policy that is objectionable. There was never any doubt about how it was applied.

Before this conference took place, Mr. Menzies said that he thought he could keep South Africa in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I believe that it would have been desirable for South Africa to retain its membership of the British Commonwealth, but South Africa’s attitude was the same as Communist China’s attitude in respect of admission to the United Nations. South Africa wanted to be in the British Commonwealth on her own terms, and those terms were fought for and supported by our Prime Minister. Whether or not Dr. Verwoerd had good intentions about remaining in the British Commonwealth of Nations, I do not know, but’ his position has not varied from the time he put in his application for South Africa to remain a member of the British Commonwealth until now. Since the conference he has confirmed quite definitely what the Australian press has stated in relation to his attitude and our Prime Minister’s attitude. He has confirmed that he does not wish to deviate from his policy in any way. In effect, he made his application, but in respect of South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth he was not prepared to agree to the terms on which South Africa could remain in the Commonwealth because the majority of the Prime Ministers abhorred the application of apartheid as it affected the human rights of the people in a member country of the Commonwealth.

That is the quintessence of the situation, although people may talk for a long while to convince us that that is not so.

Therefore, I say that the amendment is fully justified. As a matter of fact, the action demanded in the amendment is an urgent necessity and must come very soon. Whether the amendment is carried or defeated, the effect could be the same. I believe the Government will realize that it will have to appoint a responsible person to the position of Minister for External Affairs. In the opinion of the Government, everything is all right; the Prime Minister has acted in a manner quite competent and acceptable to it. When Senator McManus was making his speech there were continual interjections of “ Hear, hear “ from the Government side in support of statements that he made. But supporters of the Government have never been prepared to make them and it is their duty to Australia to make them. However, they have failed to do so. They know very well that they have been remiss in their duty to this country in dealing with Australia’s external affairs. What degree of confidence can the Parliament and the people have in the Foreign Affairs Committee - this much-feted committee, with which the Opposition does not associate - to make decisions, form a close liaison between the Government and the Department of External Affairs and be fully apprised of everything that happens. The committee has a chairman in Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes who enjoys its confidence and also that of the people of this nation. Yet, that committee has in effect refused to take the motion which has. been proposed for the purpose of trying to renew confidence in the Prime Minister. The task of moving a motion which, in other circumstances, would have been given to a man in whom the Government has placed confidence over the years, has in this instance been given to a back-bencher and a relatively new recruit to the Parliament. According to the press - I do not know whether it is right or wrong - Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes will refrain from voting on the motion.

Ministers and back-benchers who have spoken in this debate, all no doubt well instructed; have stated’ that everything is in order. 1 say that we as a Parliament have done a very bad job in not forcing more debates on international affairs. That is’ not the fault of the Opposition, because on numerous occasions the lack of opportunity for debate has. been raised. I raised the subject more than six months ago and suggested that a statement should be made by the Government as to why we should live in a fool’s paradise, as it were, by having one man holding the portfolios of Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs - like a person acting as his own lawyer - but nothing was done.

The Prime Minister has reported that he discussed Australian-American affairs with President Kennedy. He has said that the discussions were cordial and, in his opinion, successful. But no information has been given to the Parliament regarding basic matters that were decided. The Parliament and the nation have not been informed in that respect. President Kennedy has a very heavy and great responsibility which he appears to be discharging in a most efficient and progressive manner. He has many worries, as have Australia’s leaders. I pay a tribute to the representatives of the United States of America whom I met when I was abroad, for their ready appreciation of the need for a more definite and honest approach to international affairs and the dangers with which the Western communities are faced. All the aspects of the relations between the Communist powers and the Western nations to which Senator McManus referred earlier to-day, and which drew “ Hear, hears “ from Government supporters, have been known to the Government. Why has it not done something about communism? I suggest that it is because the Government is not sincere in saying that it wants to attack communism in this country. The Government parties would much rather keep the issue as a political football to be tossed backwards and forwards in the Parliament.

The United Nations is at present faced with the question of whether or not red China should be admitted as a member. The bargaining instrument, of course, is Nationalist China. We have a responsibility in relation to the question of disarmament. At the executive meeting of the InterParliamentary Union, and also at the conference of the union in Tokyo, I. made a statement on the subject of disarmament which received the support and endorsement not only of the representatives of Great Britain but also of the vast majority of representatives who were present. I said that if total disarmament were to be achieved, or if agreement were to be reached whereby armaments were reduced so that nations kept under arms only a sufficient number of men to ensure their security, the position of Communist China would have to be considered. In the matter of nuclear power, Communist China again must be considered, because disarmament cannot be done in part. It must be conclusive. I submitted, and it was endorsed, that if the world intended to proceed with disarmament and did not give full and adequate protection to all peoples from aggression and/ or domination by force, then the last position would be more confounded than that which existed at that time. I went on to say that Australia desired disarmament of a general and complete nature under effective international control, and submitted that any agreement to that end must be comprehensive, under strict in’ernational control and enforcement, with international inspections before, on and after agreement. I believe that if we try to convince ourselves that we can arrive at a satisfactory agreement on disarmament while leaving China out of it, we shall certainly do a bad job. Communist China poses a great threat - the biggest threat that faces us. Communist Russia is behind her to a large extent.

I turn now to the United Nations Organization. I feel that we have seriously to consider the advisability of confining our representation at the United Nations to the objective of making the organization itself again secure. I am satisfied that the Western powers have shown great weakness in international affairs, and I include Australia when I say that. We have spoken very often, as we do here, without a proper international outlook. We have fought rearguard actions instead of getting to grips with the basic challenges that face the democracies. The totalitarian powers, the Communist powers, have kept us fully engaged. The minds of our most prominent men have been absorbed by problems that those nations have put before us while they have been unerringly going from strength to strength, building up their armaments, improving their education systems and advancing their scientific techniques. They have been promoting the infiltration of communism, either by force or by propaganda, and this Government has done nothing to prevent it.

When we consider the activities of the United Nations, we must be impressed by the amount of futile effort that has been expended on the kind of procedures about which the Prime Minister has reported to the Parliament. We find that the power of veto has been exercised 94 times. In councils where the best minds of the world have been concentrating on trying to find solutions for the problems of humanity, the veto has been used in that way. When we break down that figure, we find that the veto has been used by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics alone, 89 times; by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and France, once; by France alone, once; by France and the United Kingdom, twice; and by China alone, once. The breakdown by countries shows that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has applied the veto 90 times on matters which, under the Charter of the United Nations, are considered to be vital to humanity. The veto has also been applied four times by France, twice by the United Kingdom and once by China. Surely this proves that the Communists of the Soviet Union are merely using their negotiations in the United Nations to cloak their real intentions and that behind the scenes they are carrying on more successfully than we are. Despite the fact that the Government had full knowledge of these matters, the Prime Minister has vacillated overseas and made such a poor job of his external affairs policy as to raise the ire of the neutral countries of the British Commonwealth, at a time when we desperately need closely knit friendships. I, therefore, say that this censure motion is definitely justified.

I think that the British Commonwealth of Nations and our ally, the United States of America, have to do several things. We must get down to fundamental facts, and we must strengthen the nations of the Commonwealth. We have been wasting time and living in a fools’ paradise. We have been lulled into a sense of false security. We have heard honeyed words and seen the effects of a twisting and vacillating policy. We must take definite steps to protect ourselves in view of the progress that has been made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its allies, the totalitarian countries. We must speak from strength. Without equivocation, governments must report honestly and continuously to their respective parliaments on matters that occur overseas.

It is a tragedy that a minister who could devote himself full time to external affairs has not been appointed to the External Affairs portfolio - a most important portfolio - and it is to be hoped that the position will be remedied at an early date. Whether or not that is done as a result of the acceptance or otherwise of the Opposition’s amendment is immaterial; the important thing is that the position is corrected as soon as possible.

It is regrettable that complete honesty of purpose has not been evinced by Government supporters during this debate. It is vitally important for arrangements to be made whereby this Parliament will be able to play a full part in the formulation of Australia’s external policy. The existence of the Foreign Affairs Committee has made it possible for the Government to lead the people of Australia to believe that something which has not in fact been done has been done. The position deteriorated to such an extent that the Prime Minister himself took over the most important portfolio of External Affairs. This has done great damage to Australia. We have lost many friends. I think it is the duty of the Government to accept the amendment and see that something is done to rectify the present state of affairs.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was made available to the Senate yesterday and it is being debated on a motion that was moved by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin -

That the paper be printed.

In speaking to the motion, the honorable senator, in a well-considered address, demonstrated the importance of this debate to every Australian. As the problems involved are real and wilt have such farreaching effects in the future, it is understandable that honorable senators have divergent views on the matters under discussion. Recently, our Prime Minister had talks with the President of the United

States of America. Subsequently, he participated in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, and later attended the South-East Asia Treaty Organization conference. I believe that the press of Australia presented to its readers only a limited coverage of what was purported to have occurred at any or all of those meetings. The press sought to damage the personal honour of our Prime Minister and, in doing so, damaged Australia’s reputation overseas. It damaged, too, the reputation of individual Australians who practise tolerance and charity to the best of their ability. It is the Australian nation of which the Opposition has been so loud in its condemnation, and it is to the people of this country that honorable senators opposite will have to answer for what they have said in this chamber. I have no doubt that, at the next election, the people of Australia will do as they have done at many elections in the past; they will send the Opposition back into the political wilderness where it can lick its sores and perhaps develop a national outlook.

I believe that when the emotionalism and the hysteria of to-day have passed, the actions and words of our Prime Minister at these conferences will be proved to have been basically right. History will record that his attitude reflected the spirit of Australia. I personally believe that he has endeavoured to carry out the wishes of the Australian people, who demand the right to conduct their own domestic affairs. We like to conduct our own affairs ourselves and to brook no interference from outside. I hope that the Opposition agrees with this assertion.

Ever since the British Commonwealth of Nations was established, it has been basically understood that the domestic affairs of the individual nations were matters for themselves. However, at the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference a new principle was established. It was brought about by South Africa’s policy in relation to apartheid - a domestic matter. South Africa had been a valued and trusted member of the Commonwealth for many years. A short time ago she decided to become and did in fact become a republic. I do not think that any one will dispute South Africa’s right to make that decision. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’

Conference, South Africa applied for readmission, or admission if you wish - I think the word “ re-admission “ is appropriate - to the Commonwealth after becoming a republic. The question of apartheid then became a matter for discussion by the conference.

Whatever any one may say about South Africa, she could not be accused of dishonesty, because that country was prepared to appear before the bar of the world and be judged on what it was doing. The subject of apartheid was discussed at the conference with South Africa’s consent. This has resulted in South Africa not being readmitted into the Commonwealth of Nations, or into the family circle, if you wish to call it such. She actually withdrew her application. I am not going to dwell on that aspect any longer. There has been a great deal of hairsplitting about it.

Will the Opposition tell me what would have been the result if South Africa had not withdrawn her application? Would she have been allowed to remain in the Commonwealth of Nations? If she had been allowed to remain, the Opposition’s view is that the whole Commonwealth of Nations would have been branded as supporters of apartheid. What is the answer of the Labour Opposition? I hear no answer. Honorable senators opposite are not prepared to face up to that question. Mr. Menzies desired to keep South Africa within the family circle, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He took the only course that any Prime Minister of Australia could take, be he a Labour, Liberal or Country Party Prime Minister, if we were to remain within the Commonwealth of Nations. That is the point. Not one member of the Opposition has come clean and stated whether the Labour Party is prepared for Australia to stay within the Commonwealth of Nations. Mr. Menzies wanted South Africa to remain within the Commonwealth, although he did not agree with apartheid.

The shocking thing about this debate is that Opposition members say that the Prime Minister did not condemn apartheid. They are endeavouring to misconstrue his statements by inferring that he agreed with it. Nothing is further from the truth. He did not agree with it and he took great pains to say that he did not agree with it. He opposed it in definite terms. Like Senator McKenna - this is one occasion where there is some agreement between Senator McKenna and the Prime Minister - he believes that you can do more within the family to correct an apparent mistake made by a member than you could if you were to exclude him. When speaking last night in support of red China’s admission to the United Nations, Senator McKenna said, in effect, by way of interjection, “ I know that red China has offended the free world. I know that some of its actions are open to censure”, - he did not mention Tibet or other actions - “ but if we bring the naughty boy, with all his faults, into the United Nations we can assist to correct those faults there.”

Senator McKenna and his satellites are quite happy as long as this principle is applied only to red China. They go down on their hands and knees and crawl to help red China but in the case of a nation that has a glorious past in many ways their attitude is different. Mr. Menzies wants to correct South Africa’s faults in the same manner as Senator McKenna has said we should correct China’s faults - within the family circle. Apparently it is wrong for Mr. Menzies to make that suggestion but it is right for Senator McKenna. Could you have a more ridiculous situation! The Opposition has condemned the Prime Minister for wanting to keep South Africa within the family circle.

I wish I had time to go through all the tortuous reasoning of Senator McKenna yesterday. I shall give just one or two examples. Quoting Mr. Hood’s speech in the General Assembly, Senator McKenna said that he construed a portion of that speech to mean that the Australian delegation would abstain from voting. He said further -

I do not say that is a proper inference to be drawn from that statement, but it is the most obvious inference to be drawn.

How tortuous can you be? How ridiculous! Senator McKenna admitted that the inference he drew was not the proper one. A little later Senator McKenna took the stand that Mr. Hood did not condemn racial discrimination. What Mr. Hood said was -

With the vast majority of world opinion, we neither support nor condone policies … of racial discrimination, and we can understand the strong feelings which have led so many delegations once again to express their condemnation of the practice of apartheid in the Union.

If Senator McKenna had used the reasoning that he used in regard to the earlier statement, he would have read into that the most damning condemnation of apartheid that you could get. But Senator McKenna did not care to do that; it did not suit his purpose. Senator McKenna went on to say, “ He neither supports nor condones, but why does he not condemn? “ I will have something to say later about that.

Senator Sandford:

– Do not make it too much later.

Senator MATTNER:

– I know that my friend cannot take it. The only construction you can put on the words “neither support nor condone “ is that you certainly disagree.

What is apartheid? Has any one in this chamber or outside of it ever lived in South Africa and experienced the conditions there? Some of the white people living in South Africa have a background of more than 300 years of residence by their families in that country. Opposition members may level the charge that I am supporting apartheid. They can do so if they wish, and I shall stand up to anything they like to say. Let us consider apartheid. The coloured people in South Africa enjoy a higher living standard than the coloured people in any other part of Africa. Is that denied?

Senator O’Byrne:

– Of course it is denied.

Senator MATTNER:

– The honorable senator has no knowledge of what he is talking about. The coloured people of South Africa have the highest standard of living to be found amongst the coloured peoples of Africa. In proportion to the population, the coloured people have been provided with more schools, hospitals and universities. In Johannesburg a university is set apart for coloured people. There are university colleges. There are numerous colleges for coloured people in the Cape Colony, and there are colleges for the Bantu people themselves. However much you condemn apartheid, the aim of South Africa has been to improve the standards of all people in the country, particularly the native people. At present the Government of South Africa believes that these people are not ready - I am talking about the great number of Bantu and others who have come into the Union - to conduct their own affairs. Apartheid may be repugnant to us, but at least let us be charitable. Let us not condemn apartheid to damnation but let us try to influence and assist the great number of South Africans who wish to demonstrate to the world that they are not the odious people that the press of Australia and other people would have us believe. My mind goes back to the 1914-18 war - particularly to the days of 1916, when the Empire was in dire peril. I remember Delville Wood, which was taken and re-taken 24 times. There, white South African troops stood shoulder to shoulder with us. The same thing happened along the Somme. About 190,000 South Africans enlisted during the First World War and served overseas. Of that number 10,000 did not go back.

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

– What about Bloemfontein and Mafeking?

Senator MATTNER:

– If Senator O’Byrne knew anything of this subject he would have a better appreciation of the position. He does nothing to endear himself to us with interjections such as that. The South Africans stood with us in France from 1914 to 1918. In the Second World War, 360,000 South African troops served the Empire and more than 10,000 of them died. In a few days’ time we will celebrate the anniversary of Anzac. Men and women all over Australia will stand before the cross of sacrifice. That is a most solemn occasion. As I stand before the cross of sacrifice I will see marching by not only the souls of 100,000 Australian soldiers, but also the souls of 20,000 or more South Africans. Those souls will look into my eyes and they will ask me whether I have kept the trust that I promised to keep. What is to be my answer? The simple trust that they gave us was to ensure that Australia ruled her own destiny and controlled her own internal and external policies. That is the crux of this matter. What has happened to South Africa in the last few weeks may well happen to Australia in the future. We may be called before the bar of world opinion to answer for our immigration policy - something that has been entered into with the consent of every person in Australia. If the world has a right to inquire into the policies adopted by South Africa, it has an equal right to inquire into the policies adopted by Australia.

Senator Cooke:

– We have nothing of which to be ashamed.

Senator MATTNER:

– 1 know that, but the Opposition claims that Australia has lost friends because one man in this country has dared to agree with South Africa’s stand. If Australia’s policies are attacked, what is to be our answer? We must do what South Africa has done. To be honest and true to ourselves we must walk alone. I hate to think of that happening, but it is a possibility that we must be prepared to face.

There are many other matters that I could refer to. Disarmament has been mentioned. When disarmament is discussed I hope that the principles of unconventional warfare will be considered, because the difference between war and peace as we knew it has changed completely. A new type of warfare has been devisee! - psychological warfare, or warfare by propaganda. War is not declared, but efforts are being made to win over the articulate urban educated class. It is that class which makes and destroys governments. It has a strategic strength out of all proportion to its numerical strength. Revolutions take place under the cloak of peace by diplomatic manoeuvres, political warfare and its hand-maiden, propaganda, rather than under conditions of open, declared war. If the intellectual can be persuaded that the testing of nuclear weapons is harmful, it follows that he must advocate peace. The catch-cry of the Communists is disarmament and peaceful co-existence. When disarmament is discussed I hope that these things to which I have referred, will be taken into consideration.

I oppose most vigorously the amendment and support wholeheartedly the motion.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I enter the’ debate at this late hour to express some views that I hold on the subject now before the Senate. I will confine myself to a consideration of what I regard to be the very essence of the issue now under discussion - the ability of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), since he took over the office of Minister for External Affairs, to give to the people of Australia and the world at large a true insight into his ideologies. Formerly, the Prime Minister governed this country with the aid of a majority in the Parliament and the backing of the people, who believed that he was right at all times. We remember the old slogan, “Lang is right”. I believe that supporters of Mr. Menzies think that he is right in all circumstances. The Prime Minister has had the support of the newspapers of this country. They have supported him because they have common interests with him. The Prime Minister represents vested interests and the newspapers are themselves vested interests. Therefore, in order to safeguard their privileged position in the community, they have always been ready to support the Prime Minister’s internal policies.

But since the Prime Minister became the Minister for External Affairs he has found himself in the spotlight of world opinion. He has found that his views on moral issues in other parts of the world have not had the backing of other countries that he was accustomed to command in relation to domestic policies in this country. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has advocated abroad policies supposedly representing the views of the Australian people, only to find that those policies have been rejected in the councils of. the world. Events that have taken place overseas in. recent years show that our Prime Minister’s ideology is considered to be reactionary, backward and retrograde.

Senator Vincent:

– Is that all?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That more or less summarizes it. Dr. Verwoerd has been able to get comfort from people such as the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs not only in the: Commonwealth of Nations but” also from the advice given to our delegates at the United Nations. Year after year Australia has abstained from voting at the United Nations; year after year South Africa’s^ policy of apartheid has been by-passed. Such happenings mean to a man. of the: calibre of Verwoerd a condoning, an aiding, an. abetting, of the policy that he is following; On another occasion Mr. Menzies, as acting Minister for External Affairs’, was prepared to advocate full sanctions against Prime Minister Nasser. He believed that by applying pressure on Prime Minister Nasser he could discipline him into reversing the decisions he had made in relation to the Suez Canal.

We are debating, in effect, whether the Declaration of Human Rights has anymeaning in the world, whether the United Nations Charter means what it says, and whether the pariahs, the long dogs, the rebels and the brigands of the world are to get away with their own narrow-minded and bigoted ideas, or whether world opinion can be brought to bear on them to make them play the game as other peoples of the world expect them to play it. In Israel to-day Eichmann, a war criminal of the worst order, is standing trial. I would classify the German policy of herrenvolk - the master race - as being in the same category as the policy of apartheid that is practised in South Africa. Apartheid is a separation of people. It is a form of genocide. I indict the Prime Minister of South Africa as being guilty of genocide in one of its worst forms for the simple reason that not only is he killing a group of people intellectually by depriving them of basic human rights but also he is prepared, when an emergency arises, to shoot them down and annihilate them in possibly just as effective a way as Eichmann annihilated the Jewish people in the gas ovens of Buchenwald and Auschwitz.

Senator Hannaford:

– Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word “ genocide “.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I certainly know that it means wanting to extinguish by one means or another a race of people. That is what Verwoerd hopes he can do with the coloured people of Africa. People talk about the, family of nations and what happens when you have a delinquent in the family. There is no doubt that Verwoerd has proved what he is. Senator Mattner has referred to South Africans and Australians fighting side by side, during the war. This man Verwoerd was then skulking behind the newspaper “ Transvaaler “, sniping at the efforts of the British people - a friend of the Germans, a friend of the Nazis. He has never been a friend of the democratic people. He is a black sheep in white clothing. He does not want to cooperate with the British Commonwealth.

He has shown by his actions that he is not worthy to be a member of the great British Commonwealth. He has earned the contempt of the whole world. He is a threat to democracy and to Christianity. He has distorted the meaning of Christianity. He is an example of arrogance, aloofness and of the fascist-like minority that exists in a totalitarian state. I believe we are doing wrong to condone his actions and that it is well that he is out of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 29

Majority . . ..11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.46 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 April 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1961/19610413_senate_23_s19/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant