House of Representatives
1 November 1935

14^th Parliament · 1^st Session

1. House of Representatives
2. 14^th Parliament
3. 1935

---

• QUESTION
  • DAYS OF SITTING
• PAPER
• ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESOLUTION OF SYMPATHY
• WHEAT AND WHEAT PRODUCTS BILL 1935
  • Second Reading
• SANCTIONS BILL 1935
  • Second Reading
  • Second Reading
• ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  • Municipal Land Values
  • Governor-General’s Residences
  • Military Training Schools
  • Rifle Clubs
  • Wireless Telephones
  • Bass Strait Air Disaster
  • Tasmania^ Communications

---

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

page 1253

QUESTION

DAYS OF SITTING

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– As the honorable member for Melbourne, and on behalf of that, my native city, I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that next Tuesday is the great carnival day of Victoria, aye, even of Australia, hewill arrange as a favour and as a gesture of goodwill to thousands of Australians that this House shall meet next week on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday instead of on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, as was suggested ?

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Dr.MALONEY. - May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all honorable members, to rejoice with me in the fact that I have won that great Australian racehorse, Peter Pan, in a 2s. 6d. sweep ?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP; UAP from 1931

– The honorable member for Flemington - I mean Melbourne - was good enough to intimate to me that he proposed to ask this question. He has made his request in the friendly fashion that characterizes all his actions, and one finds it hard to refuse to accede to it. I feel that the honorable member speaks for not only a large number of his own colleagues, but also many honorable members on this side of the House. When he notified me ofhis intention to raise the matter, I instituted inquiries which revealed the fact that the sessional order relating to days of sitting provides that, unless otherwise ordered, the House will meet fur the despatch of business on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in each week. In the circumstances I do not propose to move for a departure from that resolution. It is therefore intended that the days of sitting next week shall be Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. May I congratulate the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) upon having obtained an interest in such a wonderful racehorse as Peter Pan by the investment of so small a sum as 2s.6d?

page 1254

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Sugar Agreement - Fourth Annual Report of the fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for year ended 31st August, 1935.

page 1254

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESOLUTION OF SYMPATHY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I desire to inform the House that I have received from Mrs. Maxwell a letter thanking the House for its resolution of sympathy in her bereavement.

page 1254

WHEAT AND WHEAT PRODUCTS BILL 1935

Second Reading

Dr.EARLE PAGE (Cowper - Minis ter for Commerce) [10.35]. - In moving

That the bill be now read a second time,

I desire to inform the House that the object of the Government is to bring into operation a plan of organization to apply to wheat the principle ofa homeconsumption price, by means similar to those already functioning in the case of dairy products and dried fruits.

The wheat industry has been in a difficult position at various times since the war, and especially within recent years owing to the consistently low prices which have prevailed. This industry is very important in the national life of Australia. It engages the principal attention of nearly 70,000 farmers, who have produced crops valued, in times of reasonable prices, at £40,000,000 annually. In more recent times the value of the crop has declined, owing to reduced prices, to the vicinity of £25,000,000. The industry has played its part in helping Australia during the depression. An instance of that is the splendid response made by wheat-growers throughout Australia to an appeal by the Commonwealth Government early in the depression to “grow more wheat”.

It is necessary in the national interest that wheat producers should be paid a reasonable price which will enable them to carry on and meet their obligations. The Commonwealth Government has aimed at affording to wheat-growers a home-consumption price in respect of that portion of their product which is consumed in Australia. This, to some extent, will afford them price conditions similar to those afforded to secondary industries, except that wheat-growers have to export a large proportion of their product, and in. respect of that proportion they must accept world prices. Action to bring about a home-consumption price will establish a firm starting point for a comprehensive rural rehabilitation scheme by supplementing in an effective manner the steps already taken to adjust farmers’ debts by means of composition arrangements through the grant of £12,000,000 to the States under the Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Act.

While seeking a permanent solution, the Commonwealth Parliament has afforded financial assistance to the following amounts : -

But realizing that the wheat industry should not be always dependent upon annual grants in its times of adversity, the Federal Government in 1933 appointed a royal commission for the purpose of investigating by what means the industry could be placed on a permanent and stable basis. The grant of £4,000,000 for the 1934-35 season was made on the recommendation of the royal commission.

One of the principal recommendations of the royal commission was that a homeconsumption price should be paid for wheat. The commission made recommendations regarding the means by which this objective should be achieved. To begin with, a continuance of the flour sales tax or an excise duty was recommended. It was further recommended that a. compulsory marketing scheme should be adopted for the future, in order to achieve theobjective of a home-consumption price.

When the Government received the report of the commission, it gave effect to its policy of consulting the Australian Agricultural Council, which was established for the purpose of securing the cooperation of all the governments of Australia on major agricultural problems. The legal and constitutional aspects of the different means of assisting the wheat industry were considered by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in May, 1935, when a resolution was passed that legislation should be enacted by the Commonwealth and State Parliaments providing for organized marketing of wheat, as was done in regard to dairy products. At a further meeting held in October, consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and State Governments and of every section of wheat interests, the matter was again exhaustively discussed. On that occasion the following four proposals were considered : -

1. Commonwealth and State compulsory pools.
2. State compulsory pools, with an excise on wheat imposed by the Commonwealth to enable a home-consumption price to be paid.
3. Continuance of the flour tax.
4. A plan submitted by the Commonwealth based upon the principles already embodied in legislation regarding dried fruits and dairy products.

The general plan for compulsory pools was considered to he impracticable, because of the lack of unanimity among the State governments. The flour tax, owing to difficulties associated with its imposition, was regarded as a stop-gap measure rather than a permanent solution.

During the discussion which took place in the Wheat Conference the following principles were unanimously approved : -

1. That a home-consumption price for wheat should be established ;
2. That the Commonwealth and State Governments should take the necessary action to provide the means to secure this home-consumption price;
3. That provision should be made to license flour-millers; and
4. That wheatreceivers should he licensed tinder a warehouse plan.

In view of the differences of opinion expressed in the Wheat Conference as to how these principles should be applied, the Commonwealth and State Ministers met as the Australian Agricultural Council, and, after exhaustive discussion, passed the following resolutions unanimously : -

The conference of State governments generally approves the Commonwealth plan of securing a home-consumption price for wheat, and State Ministers will favorably recommend its adoption to their Governments.

If insuperable obstacles unfortunately delay implementing the plan for the coming harvest, the conference urges the temporary re- imposition of the flour tax to enable a homeconsumption price to be paid.

The home-consumption price for wheat recommended by the conference is 4s. 9d. per bushel f.a.q., f.o.r. at seaboard.

The success of. our marketing plans as applied to dairy products and dried fruits depends upon agreement between the organized units of the industries concerned in regard to the equalization of export and home-consumption returns, and on the existence of some concentrating agency through which the product passes, namely, the butter factory in the case of the dairying industry, and the packing shed in the case of the dried fruits industry. Through this organization in those two industries, the returns received on the domestic and export markets are made the subject of equalization. This equalization of returns is assured by provision in the legislation for the fixation of a home-consumption quota by the State, and by the legal requirement, in respect of interstate trade, that the trader shall export, or cause to be exported on his behalf, the prescribed quota of his production. Interstate trade is regulated by the issue of licences, subject to the condition that the licensee will comply with the export quota provisions. In actual practice, the utmost freedom to export or sell on the domestic market is maintained. The necessary adjustments are made by the Equalization Committee between the different producers and the different States, without the physical transfer of the products.

In the case of the wheat industry, difficulties were found in applying the same type of legislation, because of the absence of concentrating points similar to the factory in the case of the dairying industry, and the packing shed in the case of the dried fruits industry. It was found that these difficulties could be overcome by the licensing of receivers of wheat, which very markedly reduces the number of units to be dealt with and makes possible an effective plan. In a State like New South “Wales, where the silo system is well developed, the plan will work with very little additional machinery, and the system of licensing wheat warehouses that the plan will initiate should stimulate a long-hoped-for reform in other States, audi prove of great advantage in safeguarding the interests of the wheat-growers.

In general principle, the legislation proposed for the marketing of wheat follows that already in existence for the marketing of dairy products and dried fruits which has been in force for some time, and has operated with satisfaction. The State legislation for the wheat industry will bring into existence wheat boards analogous to the dairy products boards. It will impose on the wheatgrower the obligation to consign his wheat to licensed receivers, and to furnish an authority which will enable the receivers to pass a duplicate copy of the receipt for the wheat to the State authority, which will issue to the farmer a home-consumption warrant in respect of that part of the wheat delivered by him which corresponds to the quota fixed for home consumption in the State concerned. The farmer will also receive an export warrant for the remainder of his wheat. The State Wheat Boards will have power to sell home-consumption warrants, at the home-consumption price, to the millers who require wheat to grist for domestic consumption, and the State boards will be empowered to enter into arangements to make the necessary adjustments as between the. States.

The Commonwealth Parliament is simply required to legislate to ensure that interstate trade will be regulated in such a way as to make the State legislation effective and this bill provides for that to be done. Farmers in one State may deliver their wheat to licensed receivers in another State under conditions set out in the bill. Once the wheat has been delivered to a licensed receiver it will be dealt with in the same way as wheat delivered from farmers in that State. The Commonwealth bill provides for the issue of licences in respect of interstate trade, and processors will be required to fulfil the same conditions in respect of their interstate trade in wheat products as they are required to fulfil under the State legislation in respect of their trade within the State.

I have already mentioned that the Australian Agricultural Council carried a resolution approving of the Commonwealth plan. Prior to the adoption of this resolution, the Council considered very carefully an alternative proposal submitted by the merchants and millers, under which it was proposed to ensure a homr-consumption price for wheat by means of a graduated excise fixed quarterly according to changes in the export price of wheat. It was claimed for this plan that it had the advantages of simplicity and inexpensiveness in administration as compared with the plan proposed by the Commonwealth. Federal and State Ministers carefully examined the .proposal of the merchants and millers, and came to the conclusion that it did not possess the advantages claimed for it.

The merchants’ plan would require legislation by the Parliaments of both the Commonwealth and the States just as does the Commonwealth plan. It would also require Federal and State machinery for the collection of the excise and the payment of a bounty to the growers. Past experience shows that the distribution of the funds either as a general bounty on all wheat produced, or on that used for home consumption, is a fairly expensive operation. Furthermore, under the plan proposed by merchants and millers, the assurance of a home-consumption price would depend upon the Commonwealth Parliament periodically levying a flour tax or a wheat excise tax, which might vary quarterly. This would introduce an clement of political uncertainty. Under the Commonwealth plan a homeconsumption price would be automatically secured by the sale of home-consumption warrants, by the State Wheat Boards, to processors for their home-consumption requirements. The legislation now proposed, if adopted, will enable that plan to proceed without interruption. The merchants’ plan would depend for its effectiveness upon the Commonwealth exercising its excise power by Commonwealth statute. If the price of wheat rose temporarily to approximately the home-consumption price at a time when excise legislation was under consideration, the Federal Parliament might not pass legislation. As a consequence, if the price subsequently dropped to a low level when Parliament was out of session, the wheat industry might be left without the means of securing an adequate homeconsumption price.

Of the other objections raised by the merchants to the Commonwealth plan, it should first be said that nothing in the proposed Commonwealth plan would prevent merchants or millers buying special wheat at a premium, if they so desired. The experience of the butter and dried fruits equalization plans indicates that no serious checks occur to trade flowing in its ordinary channels, nor is there any huge expense necessarily attached to the means to make it work.

I am informed that the governments of New South Wales and Queensland have already introduced legislation into (.heir Parliaments to give effect to the plan agreed upon, and the Government of Victoria will introduce its legislation next Wednesday. The Commonwealth Government is ready to pass its legislation to enable the plan to operate this year, but it cannot finally pass it until the State legislation is enacted. It therefore proposes that the bill which I have brought up will be further discussed when the State legislation is further advanced, which, it is hoped, will ‘be soon enough to give opportunity for the scheme to operate for this year’s harvest.

Debate (on motion -by Mr. A. Green) adjourned.

page 1257

SANCTIONS BILL 1935

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3lst October (vide page 1214), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the bill has now read a second time.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- It will be recognized that this bill is presented to Parliament in circumstances of the utmost gravity, and that the decision that we shall make in respect of it will be fraught with portents of the deepest significance to the future of Australia. It is not unreasonable to remind the House that the world war of 1914- 1918 had its origin in circumstances not entirely dissimilar from those which exist to-day in regard to Italy and Abyssinia. The major powers of the world were at that time involved in war as the result of a conflict which was limited at its commencement to Austria and Serbia. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia could have been submitted to by Servia, but it was resisted. As the result of that resistance, event followed event rapidly until the world found itself involved in the most terrible conflict known to history. We are now faced with the fact, that in consequence of what has taken place, and is taking place, between Italy and Abyssinia the world, if not at the moment actually involved in war, is being told that its peace is menaced. Steps are, therefore, being taken, by various countries and in a variety of ways, which have for their purpose some kind of concerted action which, it is believed, may place such restraint upon Italy as will cause it to abandon its campaign against Abyssinia. It is true that, in a substantial measure, the efforts at concerted action have their origin in a series of agreements reached in consequence of the functioning of the League of Nations, and that the efforts towards collective security have been more or less accepted by many people in many countries as a method of safeguarding their particular territories against the risk of war. I believe, however, that an examination of the present circumstances would suggest that a general bargain to go to war in the name of collective security is the worst possible policy for a nation which has proclaimed its determination to act peacefully towards the rest of the world. Australia declares that it stands for peace. By the provisions of the Kellogg Pact, it undertook that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts which arise of whatever nature, or of whatever origin, shall never be sought except by pacific means. It is, therefore, quite clear that the pacific course is the only one open to Australia if it is to honour its obligations under the Kellogg Pact.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– Would the honorable member say that the Kellogg Pact overrides the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr CURTIN:

– The Kellogg Pact is a binding obligation on the Government of Australia.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– But does it override the Covenant of the League?

Mr CURTIN:

– The Covenant of the League is not more binding on Australia than are the provisions of the Kellogg Pact. The Covenant and the Pact of Paris are in fact, related documents which should he construed together. It may be said that the Kellogg Pact was made as the outcome of the general recognition that if war was to be outlawed some wider and more specific agreement was necessary than could be made under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Kellogg Pact does what the Covenant of the League does not do, for, in respect of the nations which have signed it, it outlaws war as an instrument of action for the settlement of international disputes. The Covenant of the League provides the structure and, as it were the machinery with which to develop for the world that international solidarity which would permit collective security ultimately to become an attainable realization. Bound up with the League Covenant are various other considerations. We know that efforts have been made under the Covenant to secure disarmament and to provide other means to avoid war. Primarily and basically I cannot see how Australia can maintain its loyalty to the Covenant of the League of Nations, for it commits it to obligations that were subsequently negatived by the strict provisions of the Pact of Paris.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– That pact ceases to operate as soon as one nation breaks it.

Mr CURTIN:

– Everything ceases to operate when events precipitate governments beyond their intentions. In the medley of covenants, treaties, and articles associated with the Treaty of Versailles and its derivatives, of which the Covenant of the League is but one, there is much that is contradictory and provocative of confusion. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Menzies) candidly told us yesterday that a good deal of confusion had arisen in respect of the recent activities of the Co-ordination Committee and also as to what should be the procedural steps in connexion with the application of article 16 of the Covenant. That confusion is more or less understandable. The League of Nations, like Parliament itself, is an evolutionary body. The basic position, as I see it, having regard to the Covenant and the substantial spirit behind it, is that each country is to decide for itself its own position. It may say that it will commit an act of war, or an act which is, in essence, an act of war, orthat it will not do so. The choice is left to each country to make for itself. If I understand the sentiment of Australia at all, I believe that it can be said that Australia has learned so much of the horrors of war that itis resolved that its affirmation in the Pact of Paris shall he regarded as a solemn obligation. It will not engage in war as a method of determining or solving international disputes. The Government affirms, as we were told yesterday, that our general obligations to the League of Nations commit us to a full participation in collective security. Through the Attorney-General, the Government has contended that collective security, as defined in the article of the Covenant, compels an automatic acceptance of financial and economic sanctions, but it has also contended that military and naval sanctions are not automatically operable. That, I think, fairly sets out the view expressed yesterday by the Attorney-General.

Let me consider the general subject of sanctions as related to the policy of collective security. The purpose of sanctions, to argue the matter on the highest plane, is to prevent war by coercing an aggressive country without, it is claimed, becoming involved in war ourselves. That, I think, is the essence of the arguments that can be advanced in elaboration of this doctrine, but I suggest that here an immediate contradiction is at once apparent. So far as coercion against Italy is concerned, Australia is neither neutral nor inactive; but with respect to war against Italy, the Government at present professes intentions which are the equivalent of neutrality. It holds the view that financial sanctions are automatically operative, but that military and naval sanctions are not automatically operative. Australia, therefore, can be said to exhibit a qualified neutrality, or, alternatively, a qualified aggression; but qualified or conditional opposition to Italy, as expressed in the sanctions we are now asked to apply, cannot be said to negate the prospect of our becoming involved in war. The fact is that these sanctions may be wholly emasculated as a deterrent on Italy unless we are prepared in the final result to go to war. “We have to face the fact that, unless we desist from the policy of discriminating against Italy, Italy may threaten us with war. What then would he the position of this Government and Australia? The AttorneyGeneral answers that question by a legal dissertation on the subtle distinctions between violent coercive measures and non-violent coercion. I submit that his argument in that respect, to state my view moderately, was very weak. In his own support he quoted Mr. Piddington as having said that there was a distinction of great significance, but in the controversy in which the quoted remarks were made, Mr. Piddington was the losing advocate, the unsuccessful pleader. The Attorney-General did not refer to what Professor Charteris had to say in that controversy.

Mr Menzies:

– The less said about his views the better.

Mr CURTIN:

– They are at least of great significance. Discussing Mr. Piddington’s declarations, Professor Charteris said that the Covenant of the League told a very different story. He pointed out that article 16 contains four paragraphs, of which Mr. Piddington ignored the last three, and, confining himself to the first clause, picked out two of its provisions, but ignored the introductory text and the all- important third provision. This article begins -

Should any member of the League resort to war in disregard . of his Covenants under article 12, 13, or 15, it shall, ipso facto, have committed an act of war against all other members of the League which hereby undertake to . . .

To do three things - one, to sever all trade or financial relations; and two, to prohibit all intercourse between their nations, on the one hand, and those of the Covenant-breaker on the other. These duties, Professor Charteris admitted, can be performed by a State within its own territory. That was Mr. Piddington^ argument, but the third duty of the League, as set out in this article, and which Professor Charteris stressed, was -

The prevention of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse between the nationals of the Covenant-breaking State, and-

Professor Charteris notes carefully - the nationals of any other State, whether a member of the League or not.

That is, in the present crisis, the United States of America, Germany, and Japan.

Mr Menzies:

– Does the honorable member accept the whole of that argument ?

Mr CURTIN:

– It represents a reasonable interpretation of the article as applied to the prospects now confronting the nations concerned.

Mr Menzies:

– Does the honorable member adopt the whole of that argument?

Mr CURTIN:

– I do not accept the whole of Professor Charteris’s argument any more than the honorable member accepts the whole of Mr. Piddington’s argument.

Mr Menzies:

– I adopt the whole of the views set out by Mr. Piddington in his letter.

Mr CURTIN:

– Professor Charteris states -

What article 16 (J), in effect, provides, is th is, that in the event set out in the first line the innocent members of the League without declaration of war on their part, are bound to re-act against the Covenant-breaker in specified ways, of which the last involves interference with the communications of the Covenant-breaker and non-members of the League. As regards sea communications, the duty of prevention involves blockade.

Mr Menzies:

– And the first two duties do not ; that is his case.

Mr.CURTIN.-Does the honorable member suggest that if coercive measures againstItaly are sabotaged by neutral States, or by Italy’s capacity to secure supplies from States other than Australia, sanctions will not break down?

Mr Menzies:

– There is no provision, expressed or implied, in this for a blockade, and consequently the remarks of Professor Charteris are irrelevant.

Mr CURTIN:

– My argument is. that we must judge these provisions, not on what they say, but on what they may lead to ; consequently it would be dangerous and disastrous for this Parliament to accept the view that, without an implied threat of force, we can coerce a country financially and economically, tie up its trade and prevent it from communicating with any other country. “We could no more do that than we could maintain the laws of this country merely by the declarations of this Parliament.

Mr Menzies:

– The honorable member sets article 16 entirely on one side.

Mr.CURTIN.- I do not. I accept it when read in conjunction with the Kellogg Pact.

Mr Menzies:

– And give it no meaning at all.

Mr.CURTIN.- The essence of these two documents when read in conjunction is that the best service any nation can render in order to maintain world peace is to refuse to go to war with any other country.

Mr Menzies:

– Does the honorable member suggest that that is the interpretation of article 16?

Mr.CURTIN.- It is the interpretation which would he applied by the world, having in mind the fact that wars have waged for hundreds of years and the League of Nations, during its brief existence of two decades, because of disloyalty of States, has failed to carry out recommendations of less importance than those covered by this bill.

Mr Menzies:

– I am still seeking the honorable member’s interpretation of article 16.

Mr.CURTIN. - Apparently the Attorney-General would have us believe that because Italy resisted sanctions which Australia attempted to apply, Australia would not be responsible for war if it then took steps to make such sanctions effective. He argues that the responsibility for war in that case would rest upon Italy. But that would not alter the fact that Australia would he at war, and that is the extreme crucial issue confronting this Parliament at the moment. Such an argument shows the oblique subtlety of the Minister’s statements. He said, in effect, thai if we boycott Italy and Italy resists, and we then have to take measures to make our boycott effective, Italy is the maker of that war and we are entirely free from responsibility for such a war. But we have committed ourselves to consequences which will probably lead to war; and curiously enough, one would imagine if the legal dissertation of the honorable gentleman were valid, that pickets subjected to a strike at establishments could not be held responsible for such disturbances as resulted from their presence and activities.

Australia at present is in no danger of war with Italy, unless we take part with certain other countries in what is unquestionably a blockade of Italy. I know that non-violent coercion . and economic sanctions are often put forward by pacificists as an alternative to the use of military sanctions. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) would probably look at the matter from that point of view. I have two comments to offer here. The first is that sanctions can have effect only if Italy is prepared to submit to them, and the second is that Italy’s submission or refusal will be decided, not by abstract theories or legal sophistries, but by the realities of the situation. Can Italy get supplies despite economic sanctions? Can it divide the world into two groups, one opposing it and the other, either openly or secretly, trading with it and supplying it with so much of the commodities that it needs to maintain its activities? Upon its answer to that question will rest Italy’s attitude arising out of our own actions in this matter, and the issue will be decided whether or not Australia will become embroiled in war. It is clear that, if we are opposed to hazards leading inevitably to Australia’s becoming embroiled in war, we should not participate in the enforcement of these sanctions. On the other hand, if we are prepared to take perilous risks, then, of course, we can set out on such a programme

Bride goeth forth on horseback grand and gay,

But cometh back on foot, and begs its way.

It is idle to ignore the power of malign forces which hitherto have made a profit out of the trade in war. We know that throughout the last war, despite the fact that there was in operation a War Precautions Act in Australia, and a Defence of the Realm Act in the United Kingdom, and despite the fact that French policy was mo3t scrupulous to protect French interests, British and French industries maintained to Germany a steady stream of glycerine for explosives, nickel, copper, oil and rubber. Germany even returned the compliment ; it sent France iron and steel magnetos for gasoline engines. During the war this constant traffic went on in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain and Holland, by the simple process of transhipment - enemy to neutral to enemy. It is no bristling Communist who supplies corroboration, but as conservative and well-known a gentleman as Rear-Admiral William Warcop Peter Consett, who was British naval attache in Denmark between 1912 and 1917, and in Norway and Sweden between 1912 and 1919. I submit that illicit traffic in goods for the profit of the supplier, which, had the effect of equipping both belligerents for the carrying on of their respective campaigns, as was the case in the last war, cannot be considered to have been entirely eliminated to-day. Such a traffic was carried on even while the last war raged. Evidence of what has happened since can be summed up in the finding of an authoritative committee to the League of Nations in September, 1921, which shows how certain interests operate to-day to wreck the policy of governments designed to preserve the peace of the world. It would be just as easy for the great oil and financial inter ests of the world, which know no country, to wreck the sanctions imposed by Great Britain, France and Australia, as it was for them to wreck the disarmament conference by expending enormous sums of money in order to maintain a situation which makes armaments more or less unavoidable. In September, 1921, a committee of the League of Nations reported in regard to armament firms -

That armament firms have attempted to bribe Government officials both at home and abroad.

That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programme of various countries in order to stimulate armament expenditure.

That armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.

That armament firms have organized international armament rings through ‘which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.

That armament firms have organized international armament trusts which have increased the price of armaments sold to governments.

It is idle for governments to ignore the influences on public policy, which are reflected in the decisions of governments exercised by those vested interests which stand as an insuperable bar to the reconciliation of peoples and the development of a peace conscience throughout the world Those interests which, for gain, destroyed the prohibition policy of the United States of America simply because there was profit in illicit trading in alcoholic liquors will be ‘busily engaged from now on seeking to make profits out of illicit trade with Italy. Tho non-inclusion of petrol in the sanctions formulated by the Coordination Committee of the League of Nations makes its whole proceedings suspect, for were petrol included in the sanctions, Italy would bo decisively and immediately, prejudiced in its attack on Abyssinia. But the inclusion of petrol in the sanctions would also be prejudicial to the powerful international oil interests, and therefore, no mention is made of petrol in the sanctions. By imposing sanctions, Australia will prohibit the export of commodities which are relatively inconsequential to Italy’s military activities, whilst the great financial interests associated with petrol will remain free to maintain supplies of a commodity which unquestionably will aid Italy in its aggression. As a matter of fact, oil for

Italy is now being supplied by the AngloPersian Oil Company as the following newspaper extract shows : -

London, Tuesday.

Allegations admitted to by the Chairman of the Directors, Sir John Cadman, that the Anglo-Iran (Anglo-Persian) Oil Company Limited, was supplying oil to Italy, were made by Mr. Lloyd George to-day.

Mr. .Lloyd George was addressing the Peace Re-construction Council, and he said that the company, of which Britain was one of the largest shareholders, claimed that if it did not supply the oil for the Italian tanks and planes which were bombing Abyssinian women and children, America would.

Interviewed later, Sir John Cadman said that oil was being supplied ito Italy in accordance with the sanctions. It is clear, therefore, that the sanctions which have been formulated do not prohibit the supply of oil to Italy. The Commonwealth proposes to refuse food to the civilian population of Italy, as well as to those Abyssinians who have been captured by Italian armies or have entered Italian camps as refugees, in the hope that Italian operations in Abyssinia will thereby he made more difficult, but the powerful interests, which are the enemies of peace, are so potent in affecting the decisions of the League of Nations that petrol which is used to destroy life has not yet been included in ‘the sanctions. In another statement Mr. Lloyd George said -

I have just had a pathetic conversation with the Abyssinian Minister to London. Britain is supplying Italy, through the Anglo-Iran (Anglo-Persian) Oil Company, of which I think we are the largest shareholders, with oil that is used in aeroplanes which are bombing women and children. Tanks and submarines also are being supplied.

The oil-magnates are very powerful. “ When will we have a government to stand up to people of that sort for righteousness ?”

It is useless to deny that the traffic which went on during the world war for profit will continue in respect of these sanctions.’ Obviously, governments will either genuinely apply the sanctions, and enforce them, whatever the consequences, or else they are merely staging a bluff. On this subject the New York Times says -

While officially condemning Italy’s Ethiopian campaign as an imperialist attempt to subdue a free people, the Soviet Union is furthering the Fascist aims and profiting from them by exporting supplies to the Italian camps in Africa.

For several months Greek freighters have been taking cargoes from Soviet Black Sea ports to Massawa and Mogadishu. No report of the traffic has appeared in the Russian, Italian and Greek press.

The Soviet insists on cash payments before the Greek freighters begin loading.

In that respect it is like the AngloPersian Oil Company -

The war business with Italy is more profitable to the Soviet than the trade -with other Mediterranean countries, which demand reciprocal export balances where no political alliance exists.

It would appear that the League of Nations is not prepared to deal a mortal blow at Italy’s mechanized army because that would also mean threatening the powerful international oil interests which, with the armament trusts, have frustrated the efforts at disarmament and are, in fact, the real enemies of world peace. That Australia should refuse food to Italy, and thereby deny it to those Abyssinians who are now controlled by Italy, while the oil interests continue to supply petrol for Italian aeroplanes to bomb the helpless Abyssinian population, defies rational explanation. It is an affront to common sense to argue that an economic boycott of Italy can be maintained without the application of force. As between democratic countries, attempts at bluff are utterly unreliable; in the presence of megalomaniac dictators they are menacing to ourselves as well as to others. According to the London Times, Mr. Baldwin, in December, 1927, quoted the words of article 16, which the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Menzies) referred to at such length yesterday, and referred particularly to the contribution, by the members of the League, of military and other forces in order to protect League Covenants. He asked : “ How can we honour this undertaking without armed forces?” He supplied his own answer when he said, “ Clearly, we could not do so “. That statement is a definite admission of the obligation, in prescribed circumstances, to take military action if article 16 is to operate.

There is a practical interpretation of sanctions which is far more significant than any legal interpretation. What sanctions mean can be judged from. the views expressed by a number of authorities. Yesterday the views of Professor Brierly and Mr. A. B. Piddington were quoted. I draw attention to the statement of Mr. Baldwin in the House of Commons on the 7th February, 1934 -

An economic sanction is very difficult to bring into effect without blockade. Blockade is an act of war, and every country, unless it is absolutely impotent, which you blockade, will light you for it.

That is a more realistic picture of the situation than Mr. Piddington’s sophistries, or the Attorney-General’s eloquent quotation of them. I do not know how the statement of Sir John Latham, which was read to the House yesterday, can be construed to support the argument of the Attorney-General. I shall read a portion of it again - and in reading only a portion I do no injustice to the context. Sir John Latham, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 22nd October, 1935, said -

The prohibition of economic and other intercourse must involve in many cases if it is to be effective, the establishment of a blockade. Accordingly it must be realized that when it is proposed that the provisions of article 1G should bc put into operation the decision which a government lias to take is just the same decision as it has to take when the question is one of a declaration . of war. The responsibility is the same in one case as in the other.

If sanctions are being applied by Australia in pursuance of article 16 of the Covenant, I now reply to a question asked of me earlier by the AttorneyGeneral, by saying that I understand article 16 to mean that, if applied, we go to war with the country against which we apply it. Sir Stafford Cripps has said -

It is useless to imagine that economic sanctions may not also entail military sanctions, and the latter may - if ever the necessity for their imposition arises - entail a first class European war.

An extract from the Christian Science Monitor, which is one of the most distinguished universal publications in the world, reads -

Sanctions breed sanctions. Britain, as League policeman might begin by barring essential Italian imports from British sources. That would mean barring the exit of the banned commodities from British ports. But Italy would be able to obtain them just the same. In such circumstances sanctions would lead by stages direct to a blockade. The policeman would have to leave his own ports for the Italian ports in order to see that the pressure worked.

That is not a fantastic picture. Indeed it depicts the only possible result of an attempt to make sanctions effective. In the House of Commons, on the 22nd October, 1935, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, speaking of military sanctions, said that the necessary precondition of collective agreement had never existed and had not been discussed at Geneva, and that therefore they formed no part of British policy. But will Britain yet have to face the necessity to include military sanctions as part of British policy ? If so, and Britain agrees that military sanctions must follow as a logical sequence, are we to understand that Australia will not be hound by military sanctions? The answer of the Attorney-General then would be that sanctions do not matter because the Empire is at war. Australia would be involved in war, not because economic sanctions led naturally to military sanctions, but because the resistance to economic sanctions compelled Great Britain to take military or naval measures in order to enforce them. Thus, whatever may be the roads whereby the inevitable pass is reached, Australia will have to face the position of being either at war or not at war. However we may attempt to evade the issue now, it appears conclusive that the decision which is bound up in the passage of these sanctions compels us to have cognizance of the time when war becomes inevitable.

On the 29th October, just two weeks after Sir Samuel Hoare made his statement to the House of Commons, the Sydney Morning Herald, in an editorial, questioned whether the “ effectiveness “ of the sanctions could be deemed satisfactory, and stated that Viscount Cecil and other persons of importance in England were despairing of “ half-way measures,” and had pointed out that, if Signor Mussolini should persist in his challenge to the League of Nations, they could see no alternative but for Britain, in the near future, to press Geneva to the imposition of military sanctions. The Sydney Morning Herald then proceeded to ask “whether the economic sanctions now proposed can be assured without policing, that is, without examination at sea of cargoes destined for Italy”. That is a form of naval blockade. The newspaper summed up its conclusions by declaring that* the Covenant of the League of Nations requires not merely isolation of the conflict, but also its cessation. The League, it went on to say, cannot save the Abyssinians from their agony by ruining Italy and starving millions of Italian women and children at home. Those are considerations which, it is urged, may soon compel Britain, as a further test of the resolution of League members, to impose military sanctions at Geneva.

That is not merely a view that could be quoted as that of an opponent of the present Commonwealth Government. Inevitably, the Sydney Morning Herald is a conspicuous supporter of it. It has the wisdom, however, to perceive inevitable and logical conclusions from government policy which the Attorney-General is either afraid or does not desire to state himself.

Professor Charteris, professor of international law, had something to say on this same point when he declared -

From economic sanctions to police sanctions, the step i3 short, but may bc very steep. If the step is taken and the Covenant-breaker resists, then you are plunged into war - plunged into war at the call of the Covenantbreaker. It is, therefore, completely misleading to say that economic sanctions under an article of the League are not an act of war. If they are not an act of war, they aire not due fulfilment of the duties imposed by Article XVI.

That being the case, why is it that the real issue of the situation is being evaded? Having regard to the stated intentions of prominent League spokesmen that Italy must be restrained or the League will fail, why is not Italy threatened with the full exercise of every coercive power, diplomatic, financial, economic, and military? If the case for sanctions against Italy is established, and if the obligations on member States, cannot be satisfied, except by defeating. Italy’s present ambitions, why not proclaim it as an international duty to go straightaway to war against Italy?

If Italy is likely to yield to the threat of sanctions, would it not be absolutely intimidated by the ultimatum, that war would be waged against it unless it evacuated Abyssinia and. agreed to terms of peace ? That would be the logical construction of the position, but it is not being done, because the governments know that their respective peoples are not prepared to go to. war. But to involve them in war is another thing. Events Lead to further events.

To-day, Australia may agree to sanctions in the delusion that they avert war, and to-morrow or next month may find that, although the choice will not then be ours, war has resulted because of Italian resistance to sanctions.

There are geographical danger spots in the modern world. Part of China is one; Austria is another, and Abyssinia is a third. These are the seats of financial and economic contest and collision. Nations as such are not concerned with these theatres of exploitation and future authority; but they are concerned with them as the instruments of oil trusts, armament rings, and international high finance. The competition of these contending warmongers and peace-wreckers is the basis of public policy in many countries.

Is Australia to be dragged at the coattails of these moulders of national policy in the name of loyalty to covenants and the observance of treaties which are broken, when to break them is condoned, as in the case of Germany after Versailles, and in Manchukuo only the other day, and to uphold them when it suits interests outside Australia to do so, as in the case of Belgium, and now in Abyssinia? I ask this question, because one European war has already cost the nation irreplacable lives and treasure, and resources so vast that for generations its burden will remain as a terrific strain on OUr resources.

We cannot blind ourselves to the pre, sent shortcomings of international solidarity. I repeat what Sir Samuel Hoare has said, in respect to military sanctions -

I will say frankly, in view of the precondition for the enforcement of such sanctions, that a collective agreement at Geneva has never existed.

Does such an essential pre-condition for the enforcement of any other kind of international agreement or sanctions exist? If it does, how explain the failure to accomplish disarmament?

What explanation- is there for the breakdown of the World’ Economic, Conference.? Why, the slow- pi-ogress towardthe ratification, of the- conventions of the International Labour Office?-

Iti may be said that those conventions ure relatively unimportant, fcu* that is not the case. The Covenant especially declares that the basis: of international peace is social justice. Until such relations are observed peace between nations is not attainable. Yet in this, essential pre-condition to peace among nations the findings of the League have been broadly ignored. Forty conventions have been adopted. The number of ratifications, which should be- effected,, if every nation ratified all the conventions, is- 2,230, but only 568 ratifications have been actually made. Just how far the hazardous experiment of the. enforcement of the partial application of sanctions against a belligerent country can be expected to lead nations back into peace can be gauged from the success, that has attended previous and other efforts to weld the countries into a peaceable collection of nations. The history of the International Labour Office is an excellent example pf the lack of success attending the efforts of the League of Nations. Broadly speaking, the constitution of the League would not provide a real solution of the problems which beset the world and lead member States into international strife unless it provided a remedy for the injustices to which the peoples are subjected. An indispensable step towards the object for which the League was created is the establishment of a. permanent association of the nations to remedy those injustices. That indispensable step has still to be taken, yet we talk about maintaining the peace of the world. This party is expected to observe the full Obligations of the various treaties to which this nation is a signatory, but I submit that this aspect has been put to us by those who throughout the whole of the history of the League of Nations have chosen which treaties they will observe and which they will not honour.

According to the reports and minutes of the Commission on International Labour Legislation of the Peace Conference, the view of “our present discontents” that led the Peace Conference to establish the organic connexion between the League and the. International. Labour Organization- was. that -

The Constitution of the League of Nations, will: not provide a real: solution, off the troubles that have beset the world in the past, and will not even be able to eliminate: the seeds, oi international strife unless it provides a remedy for the industrial evils ana injustices which mar. the- present. state- of’ society.. Ilk proposing,, therefore, to establish a permanent organization in order to adjust . labour conditions by international action the commission, felt that it was taking, an indispensable step towards the achievement of the objects oi the League of Nations.

The. same, view is expressed in the preamble to Part XIII. of: the Versailles Treaty, which declares that -

Whereas the League of- Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can, bc established only if it is based upon social justice: And whereas conditions of ‘labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people, as to- produce unrest sogreat that the peace and harmony of ‘ the world are imperilled . . The High Contracting Parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity-, as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of. the world, agree to the following.

Then follow the forty articles of the Con?stitution of the International Labour Organization.

In other words, it waa recognized that international peace and social peace, are bound up with each other; that, in the long rim, you cannot have peace between States if there is class war within States. It is important to remember that practically, the whole civilized world is pledged by the Covenant and. Part XIII. of the Peace Treaty not only to recognize this fact, but also to try to solve the resulting problems by co-operation and conciliation, which amounts to saying they recognize a further fact of even greater importance : that States and classes are not ultimate realities but merely temporary attempts of humanity to organize its communal life,, and therefore State conflicts and class conflicts must be subsidiary to the great permanent interests of mankind. In this connexion it is relevant to note that countries which have elected to abjure this view, and put State or class first, are logically impelled to postulate, a world where violence rules supreme, both within and without the State, and sp to deny the very foundations on which the League and the Labour Organization rest.

I do not desire to quote at any great length the signal failure which marked the efforts made in 1919, when the International Labour Office formulated a convention limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings. At the end of 1934 only eighteen of the member States had ratified that convention. Yet they talk about solidarity and collective action ! The member nations have accepted obligations under which they express their willingness to assist each other in efforts to abolish war. We are told we must stand up to them in this effort. How does that measure up to the denial of the obligations by the nations to assist each other in connexion with industrial activities. It must be apparent that, while the dominance of great interests who profit out of war is allowed, peace cannot rule in the world. Peace cannot come until those who seek profit from productive services are defeated.

The League’s failures regarding social conditions have been abject, but in regard to disarmament the position is even worse. On this pivotal point of the future of the world, recent history provides a tragic record. When the war to end war ended, Germany was disarmed. A decade passed and the signatory powers to the Treaty of Peace took no steps of value towards equality with Germany. Then came a series of conferences. A’ recently deceased British Labour leader devoted his life towards the task of effecting world disarmament. Failure on failure marked every effort. Now Germany is establishing a basis of equality with other nations, not because they have disarmed, but because Germany is re-arming.

The British war-time Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, has declared that the failure of disarmament was due to the lack of support for it by the majority of the high contracting parties. He has said -

We imposed upon Germany, who was accused of trampling by organized violence on international right, the most ruthless destruction of its peccant armaments. When the German delegates displayed natural hesitation about accepting these conditions, which reduced their Fatherland to impotence in an armed world,Clemenceau wrote them a letter, on behalf and at the request of his colleagues, assuring the Germans that their disarmament would be treated as a prelude to steps for general reduction of armaments by the other nations. His pledge is also expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was accepted by all the signatories to the treaty and ratified by their Senates. Two out of four who drafted that solemn undertaking have passed away - Clemenceau and Wilson. Signor Orlando and I remain. As one of the two survivors I have nohesitation in accepting the German view that the victorious nations have shamelessly broken faith on the question of armaments. I should be surprised to hear that my co-survivor, Orlando, took a different view of the turpitude of the victors in this respect.

The British Government, according to a speech delivered by Mr. George Lansbury, opposed at Geneva all plans for the drastic reduction of armaments. Lord Londonderry, in the House of Lords, on the 22nd May, 1935, made it plain that it was Britain which defeated plans for all-round and complete disarmament in the air - plans which might have succeeded if they had been strongly supported. Mr. Lansbury went on to say -

They acquiesced in clandestine German re-armament, but failed to make proposals to Germany for a convention on the international reduction and supervision of armaments, by which, through the practical recognition of her right to equality of status, the full responsibility for failure would have been publicly established, if failure there had been. ‘

I submit that the implications of the future are more menacing now than at any time since the League was established. With Italy driven out of the League, only three great powers - Britain, Prance, and Russia - out of seven major world-powers are left in itAustralia’s two nearest neighbours, Japan and the United States of America, are outside the League.For this Government, in any circumstances, to muddle us into a war over European disputes and entanglements while Japan and the United States of America remain aloof, wouldbe a crime equal in madness only to its terrific consequences. Australia is entitled to review the hopes it had when itbecame a. member of the League, and to compare them with the realities of the present situation. What had been an ideal may, in the vastly changed order of things to-day, become a veritable snare. The. Covenant was accepted as a moral compact on which the nations of the world would develop unitedly along the ways of peace. The good of mankind was tobe their inspiring urge, and no vested or narrow interests were to ‘bar the road.

When the Covenant was framed, it was assumed that political democracy would he the prevailing system of government, that the League would soon be universal, and would impose all-round limitation and reduction of armaments, that the cult of war was dead, and that the economic system of capitalism would continue to function successfully. All these assumptions have been falsified. The economic depression has engendered a wave of political reaction which has assumed nationalist and imperialist forms. As a matter of fact, the- League found that its deadly inheritance from the world war had fouled its course from the very start. The League became an arena of disputation in which each nation fought for its own hand, or the hand of the interest which dominated its nationalist policies. The task of the peace-workers was frustrated by the defection of the United States of America, the unjust early treatment of Germany, the international conspiracies against Russia and the havoc exerted by the now acknowledged publicists of the forces which did not desire peace. To-day the Covenant, whilst more elaborate in phraseology, is also grievously more defective as an instrument of international action. Europe is less stable politically, and more disordered economically. The world depression has intensified nationalism; it has weakened internationalism. Democracy is in eclipse in the three great countries of Russia, Germany and Italy, which are lands of dictatorship. Two of these three dictatorships are on -opposing sides in the present crisis, and the third is furtively watching and waiting to ascertain what the witches’ brew may offer to its advantage. Thus, only Britain and France can be counted among the major world powers to whom the League of Nations counts as a living instrument of international concert. France fears Germany, and, therefore, is hoping, rather than striving, for the maintenance of the League. These two powers, and not the League as a league of substance, are the real negotiators with Italy.

This week I addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) a question regard ing the nature of the terms of peace which it was stated Italy had submitted to the French Government, and which were reported to have been communicated by the French Premier to the Government of the United Kingdom. It was reported that the proposals were being studied in London, and that the next move lay with Britain and France, who, it was said, would doubtless formulate their own ideas based on knowledge of what the League was likely to accept. [Leave to continue given.~

In reply to my question, the right honorable gentleman replied -

The Commonwealth Government is kept informed by the Government of the United Kingdom of conversations it has held with the Government of France, but the Commonwealth Government is not free to disclose confidential communications between the governments referred to.

Should we not consider for a moment the menace of this secrecy? We are asked in this bill to take coercive measures against Italy, although we are not in a position to know on what conditions, if any, it is prepared to withdraw from Abyssinia. We are, in fact, asked to continue to prosecute some form of campaign against the Italian people and the Italian Government, while that government is admittedly carrying on negotiations for peace, the nature of which this Parliament is not permitted to know. May not these terms be acceptable as a solution of the momentous problem? Are we not entitled to say whether they are reasonable or unreasonable? As a sovereign nation, before we commit ourselves to acts of aggression against any country, we are entitled to know what proposals it has put forward which would perhaps make unnecessary the drastic steps contemplated by the Government. Should not this Parliament have knowledge of those communications before it takes the responsibility of policies which, instead of ending the war between Italy and Abyssinia, may, in fact, involve war between Italy and other countries, including Australia? We are kept in ignorance of the offers, whatever their nature may be. We are told to adopt, as a matter of course, a variety of measures which, in fact, will not be applied universally, but for the maintenance of which force will have to be applied, and which, by their very operation will divide the world into two groups, one applying and the other seeking to evade and defeat measures which, in all probability, will widen and extend the present war rather than limit its magnitude and shorten its duration. Io matter hew attached to the doctrine of collective security this Government may be, this Parliament must calmly recognize that support for collective security, in the realities that confront us, may in the last resort mean war. If, as the AttorneyGeneral says, in effect, Australia is not ready, or is unwilling to face that ultimate conclusion, lip-service to collective security is, not only hypocritical, but also definitely prejudicial to world peace.

The false assumptions advanced by the Government yesterday to draw an analogy between our tariff policy and the application of sanctions, seem to me to be grotesque and entirely illogical. The Attorney-General said, in effect, that if we were not prepared to enforce these sanctions as part of the instrument of collective security, we had no right to impose customs prohibitions of a similar character, designed to serve our domestic needs. The fact is, of course, that when a tariff policy is applied normally, it doe3 not seek to prevent countries from trading with one another; but, by the proposal in the bill, we refuse not only to permit Italian imports into Australia, but also to permit Australian exports to Italy. In addition, we concertedly engage in definite measures to prevent other countries from either exporting to Italy or importing from it. Obviously, the distinction between the two policies is so great that it appears to me to have been more or less absurd for the honorable gentleman to introduce that comparison as an aspect of the case.

The Labour party declares that war is not a remedy for the disease of war.. It affirms that the bill before the House is warlike in its incidence, and has all the deadly significance involved in war and by war. We cannot essay a future in which, by our own act, we become policemen in the disputes of Europe without decisively, and by every implication, also undertaking to become warriors when the conditions become such that police fail, and the use of soldiers follows as a logical consequence. Therefore, this party, which has its roots in the needs of the Australian people, declares that its primary and fundamental responsibility is to safeguard them from the catastrophic hazards involved in the Government’s policy, as expressed in this proposed legislation. I shall vote against this bill. It does not contribute to the peace of the world, but it threatens to plunge Australia into the perilous vortex of European conflicts.

Australia, having regard to the need for its own safety, cannot become an arbiter of causes beyond its competence to resolve. This affirmation, I submit, is not disloyal to any one obligation into which we have entered. It is in strict conformity with our adherence to the Pact of Paris, to our human instincts for peace and concord on earth; and it is ‘ the greatest service which we can render to the welfare of mankind. Australia’s contribution to the progress of civilization should be a reaffirmation of its refusal to regard war in any event as a remedy for international disputes. By declaring its wish that peace will be established and by refusing to permit itself to be embroiled in warlike activities, this country will not only set an example to the world, but also give signal service in the direction of the preservation of its own security.

A few years ago, we were the foes of Germany and Austria because of causes not of our own making, and if, to-morrow we become the foes of Italy because of a cause not of our own making, and in another few years become the foes of another European power hecause of conflicts inherent in the racial antagonisms that mark European civilization what must the outlook be for us? If we are to declare, as a matter of formal policy, that we shall act as a balancer in the disputes and conflicts of the old world, we can never hope to preserve this new world as a land of peace. Australia is different and distinctive in character from countries of the old world, and we should occupy a distinctive place in the conflicts of the world. My party and I will oppose this measure because it embroils Australia in European disturbances and conflicts, and makes us a party to whatever war may rage in Europe, irrespective of its origin. We should not be dragged willy-nilly into every European dispute. We should be the sovereign judges of what we should and should not do. This bill is put forward as an alternative to war, but, in its very nature it proposes an act of war. In its consequences it may easily lead to the result which it professedly seeks to avoid. For these reasons my party will oppose it.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– After many weeks of great anxiety and fear of war on the part of the Australian people, in the opinion of myself and my colleagues, by the introduction of this measure we are now being brought to the brink of the most serious situation that has confronted this country since 1914-18. Step by step we have been marched by this Government along a road at the end of which there is no turning but to war. As I proceed I shall endeavour to establish beyond doubt the accuracy of this view. At each successive step in the development of this matter we are being surrounded by legal jargon and legal technicalities as to the meaning of the various articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Either this method is deliberately designed or an extraordinary lack of knowledge as to Australia’s position in this conflict is displayed. During the last few weeks we have witnessed in this Parliament direct contradictions in the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and of the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) as to our powers and obligations in regard to the League Covenant. If this conflict of opinion between the two Ministers means anything at all, it means that the Government really does not know what its powers are or where it is going. For instance, on the 17th October, the Prime Minister said -

The Common wealth, like any other member of Mie League of Nations, will decide for itself how it will gave effect to the imposition of sanctions. As recommendations are made by the League, from time to time, so the Government will deal with them.

In contrast with this the AttorneyGeneral said yesterday that Australia’s freedom to accept or reject the committee’s recommendation was “nominal rather than real”. Why did not the honorable gentleman tell the House clearly that, short of withdrawing from the League altogether, Australia could not avoid giving effect to economic sanctions^ and that, despite hi3 statement that the character of this bill is economic rather than military, Australia is similarly placed in regard to military sanctions, namely, that there is no escape? The equivocation of the Attorney-General emphasizes what we, on this side, have said from the outset, that sanctions, under article 16 of the Covenant, mean war, and that, by passing legislation such as this, Australia cannot escape imposing economic sanctions; and reliable authorities have stated that economic sanctions mean war, because they require military measures to enforce them. In this regard I mention a statement made by the AttorneyGeneral on the 18th October, when he said -

No member State, unless it is able to have its case treated as a special one, can refuse to give effect to a sanction without breaking its obligations under the Covenant.

There can be no getting away from that fact. If we commit Australia to economic sanctions under article 16 we commit it to military sanctions, and that means war. On the 11th September, speaking before the League of Nations, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, said that Britain stood for the maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety. I stress the word “entirety” to show again that economic sanctions must he followed by military sanctions, with war as ‘the inevitable result. It appears to me that this Government is simply an instrument in the hands of Mr. Anthony Eden and Sir Samuel Hoare, and is willing to accept unreservedly whatever the British Foreign Office decides. The Government is aware of the danger of informing the people too fully. It also knows that,, in the event of war outside Australia, it will not gain the same support as previously, because all thinking people to-day are very suspicious of the motives behind wars. The revelations of the activities of the armament rings, and the knowledge gained from the last war, have caused a very different outlook in the minds of the people. With these factors in mind, I believe the policy now being pursued by the Government is to lull the people into a state of false security, and to pretend that there is nothing to fear from the action now being taken by the Government. This method is not uncommon. If you influence a number of people into the acceptance of a certain line of policy, by showing at the outset an easy way out of a difficulty, and then, stage by stage, carry them along to a certain point, they cannot turn back. Under the guise of protecting the country’s honour or of standing up to obligations, the people are then compelled to go on, even if it means war. This bill, ani ihe proclamations already issued in regard to arms, mark the successive steps to which I have referred; and, as the present Italo-Abyssinian struggle develops, so will the demand come from the League for more stern action until Australia will be called upon to co-operate in providing an armed force. In this regard, T. think the most momentous portion of the Attorney-General’s speech, which undoubtedly upholds the view that sanctions mean war, was - ff the remote possibility of armed resistance is to deter us from taking economic measures against an aggressor, we may as well admit that the Covenant of the League is futile.

That statement demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Government’s policy is to go ahead, whatever the cost - in the words of the ‘Prime Minister, “up to the hilt “. I refuse, and so do my colleagues, to be drawn into the wretched consequences that will eventually arise from what are claimed to be our obligations under the Covenant. “We warn those who are against war, but are unable to visualize what the future holds, that if they accept the Government’s course as one of security, the dangers will swiftly disillusion them.

In dealing with the question of economic and financial sanctions, we must, apart from the principle they involve, take into account the circumstances in which they are to be applied. It is granted that a state of war exists between two members of the League, and that the League Council has declared Italy to be the aggressor and to have violated the Covenant, article 1(5 of which mainly provides the means to deal with such an aggressor.

We can agree that the League is serious in its efforts to deal with a country that has violated its obligations. Having agreed, therefore, to deal with Italy, it proposes to apply the provisions of article 16. It is our opinion that the full significance and meaning of the effect of the application of this article must be faced : that there is only one view that can be taken, namely, that the application of economic sanctions to a certain stage only is a mere bluff unless the nations concerned are prepared to enforce the application of sanctions if resistance is offered by Italy.

The following authorities are useful and helpful in assessing what the future holds as the result of the action now being taken by the Government. Foremost among these is a member of the Cabinet itself, the right honorable the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes), who, in a book, Australia and War To-day: The Price of Peace, made available only yesterday, writes as follows: -

AM effective sanctions must be supported by adequate force. Economic sanctions which do not materially hamper Italy’s warlike operations are not likely to deter her from aggression. If sanctions that cut off her supplies of food and raw materials and threaten her line of communication are applied, she will use every means to compel the nations responsible to abandon them. This means resort to force. Every British ship that attempted to run , the gauntlet between Gibraltar and Suez would be exposed to great risks.

I trust the Minister for Defence will remember that when I recall his stubborn silence regarding the presence of H.M.A.S. Australia in the Mediterranean. The author continues - . . an economic blockade is an act of war. It cannot be imposed without adequate armed force in reserve; the power against whom it is directed will regard? it as an act of war and those who impose it as its enemies. The imposition of an economic boycott is war, and must almost inevitably lead to armed conflict. Assuming that Italy decides to persist in her thrust into Abyssinia, she is not likely to tamely submit to an economic blockade, but will endeavour to break through it. This, of course, means war.

The League is in grave danger of being once again humiliated ; its utter helplessness in the face of crises: its inability to ensure security of its members and to maintain the peace of the world once again become increasingly evident. What the outcome will be remains to be seen. One thing is certain: no effective steps can be taken unless backed by an adequate armed force. As M. Laval has hastened to make quite clear that France is not prepared to support whatever economic sanctions the League may decide to impose by” military force, it is quite clear that unless Britain is prepared to act alone, Mussolini lias nothing to fear.

The difference of opinion which exists in regard to the many statements made in this House is sufficient to warrant the honorable members on this side in declaring that it is obvious that the Government does not understand its real obligations or in what direction it is heading. The right honorable gentleman who has published those comments is a member of the Cabinet, and has access to information denied to honorable members on this side of the House. Therefore, when he proceeds to analyse the circumstances surrounding this dispute and endeavours to place before the Australian people what, in his opinion, the application of sanctions means, his dictum cannot be ignored. As a matter of fact, the right honorable gentleman’s contention supports the case which the Leader of the Opposition and I have made on this issue.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– If that is the contention of the right honorable member, he should not remain in the Cabinet.

Mr BEASLEY:

– We will watch developments and so will the people of Australia. At this stage, owing to the comments of the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes), their attention will be focussed on this matter in a more forcible manner than would otherwise be the case. I submit that should Britain decide to act alone, Australia will become involved, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has committed us to stand by Britain “up to the hilt”.

My next authority is the Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, whose views on this matter have received wide publicity, and are known to honorable members. While the Attorney-General admitted the interpretation given by Sir John Latham as to the effect of sanctions - realizing that he could not afford to let the statement go unanswered - he must admit that his answer to it was alarmingly weak. The Attorney-General tried to make honorable members believe that economic sanctions would not in themselves produce war, and, therefore, could not be blamed for causing war, but said that war might result from a subsequent act of aggression by Italy; and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) interjected at the time, “Because that country objects to being starved “. That sums up very well the probable effect of economic sanctions. I -now propose to quote from the North American Review, which, in a recent issue, stated -

The fact that boycotts, embargoes and other economic sanctions are more likely to lead to war than to peace is widely ignored by wellintentioned people who forget that any upstanding nation, if forced to choose between being destroyed in war or being reduced to economic slavery, will take the more heroic alternative.

In further support of my contention that economic sanctions cannot result in anything but Avar, I quote the following extract from last month’s Round Table. a quarterly review of the politics of the British commonwealth of nations: -

Coercive neutrality and economic sanctions are often put forward … as an alternative to the use of military sanctions. They are -so only if the aggressor is prepared to submit to them; if he is not, his readiness to go to waT will always overtrump the neutrals’ unwillingness to go to war. Still less can we base our policy on the assumption that the meru threat of economic sanctions will be enough to prevent war. The least exercise of sanctions, even though they are purely economic, is an attempt to coerce a sovereign State against its will, and may, therefore, lead to war. However attached we may be to peace; however anxious to restrict sanctions to measures short of war, we must recognize that support for collective- security may, in the last resort, mean war.

Earlier in my speech, I quoted the opinion of the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) in regard to the possibility of Britain acting alone. No supporter of sanctions can feel very sure about the attitude of Prance. There is much yet to be disclosed in regard to her recent relations* with Italy, apart altogether from internal problems confronting the French Government. It is quite conceivable that Britain may be led practically alone into this conflict, which would mean that Australia also would be involved. Just what would be the outcome of a situation of that kind can easily be imagined, and it is certain that the dispute would assume a much greater importance than the one at present confined to Abyssinia.

The Attorney-General tried to support his plea for collective action by citing a number of resolutions carried in 1921, and allegedly supplementary to the League Covenant. He referred to certain countries which were then outside the League, and made particular reference to Germany. He said that, in 1925, Germany had, in effect, agreed to accept those resolutions, and to support whatever the League might decide in respect of them. Every honorable member will readily agree that condition’s in Germany to-day are entirely different from those which obtained in 1925.. In 1926, I was in Germany, and among many other places, visited the Krupp Armament Works, at Essen. While discussing general problems with a representative of these works it very quickly became apparent to me that the overmastering desire, of the German people was to regain the trade which they had lost as the result of the war, and they believed that the only way in which this could be done was to get back once more on a normal footing with the other nations of Europe. They felt that one way in which they could help to break clown the barriers which had been erected against them by the Versailles Treaty and the hostility of other nations arising out of the war was to become associated with the League of Nations, and the countries which formed that League. It is clear that the German people, in that frame of mind, would be. willing to endorse any resolutions emanating from the League or its members, which, in their opinion, might help to restore them to their former position. I remind honorable members, however, that tie position has changed materially since then. Now the leaders of Germany are watching this dispute very closely, they being just as anxious, to pursue a policy of colonial expansion as Italy is. Austria, Hungary and Albania have refused to associate themselves with the League decision in regard to Italy, and Germany is waiting, ready to throw its weight on “whatever side is most likely to suit its purpose. Bearing these things in mind, and remembering the uncertain attitude of France, I repeat that it is quite likely that Britain may find itself alone in a. conflict with Italy.

The armament rings of Britain and Europe are playing an important part in this dispute. In a speech delivered on the 14th November, of last year, at Southampton, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald stated -

I shall never forget when, immediately after the war, I visited the Dardanelles, and saw broken and discarded Turkish guns pointing towards the shore on which our men had hung so long by their eyebrows. On those guns were brass labels bearing the name of a British armament firm.

That statement was published in the Sydney Sunday Sun, and may be verified by honorable members.

When stressing the need for collective action, the Attorney-General said that, unless Australia were prepared to accept the proposals emanating from the Sanctions Committee, we should have to face the prospect of further rivalry in armaments, which -would go on unchecked and uncontrolled as in the past. It must be evident to everybody that the armaments race is now in progress. It is to-day unchecked and uncontrollable. As indicating the immense cost of munitions of war, let me- point out that, during the third battle of Ypres, which took place during the summer and autumn of 1917,. the British army fired 4,283,550 shells,, costing £22,000,000, in the preliminary bombardment before the battle opened. The British Ministry for Munitionsexpended £672,164,933 during 1917-1918. There was a time when the British Government was spending over £7,000,000- a day, and, let it be remembered that the profits of the armament firms during the greater part of the war amounted to 20- per cent. According to a statement made by Arthur Henderson, President of the Disarmament Conference of 1933, themilitary expenditure of 61 countries during the previous four or five years reached the immense total of more than £1.000,000,000 a year. Australia’s expenditure on armamentsduring the last three years has amounted to nearly £13,000,000. A consideration of these things must inevitably fill think. ing people in Australia, and throughout the world, with distrust and contempt for those who speak of peace and disarmament with their tongues in their cheeks.

The Attorney-General made great play on the point, that while Britain had imposed sanctions by an- order in council,.. and New Zealand had passed an act authorizing in general terms the application of sanctions, the Commonwealth Government had proceeded by a special bill. He said that regulations under the bill could be disallowed either by this House or by the Senate. He knows well that with the weight of numbers behind the Government, any motion to disallow a regulation would be crushingly defeated. In effect, the Government has made an empty gesture, and its purpose is, when this bill goes through, to impose sanctions knowing that there is no risk of its programme being upset in any way.

The bill provides the machinery for putting into effect in Australia whatever instructions are received from the British Government. Clause 5 reminds us of the days of the Wai- Precautions Act. It states that : “ where it appears to a Justice of the Peace that an offence has been, or is likely to be, committed “ he may issue a warrant to an officer who can search premises and examine books or documents of any person or firm. This is the first step in what might easily become a reign of terror, and is a sample of what Australia may expect when it becomes involved in the war to which economic sanctions will inevitably lead.

The gravity of the present situation cannot be overlooked. Under the pretence of honouring our obligations to the League of Nations, the Government seems determined that Australia shall again be dragged into the quarrels of the old world, and the final result no man dare foretell. The League has gradually developed into an instrument which is used by certain powers to maintain their economic and commercial supremacy. It has been proved to be entirely inconsistent in the application of its Covenant to countries which, in the past., have violated their obligations. The abject failure of the League to deal with Japan when that nation launched its policy of imperialism to secure Manchuria branded it either as impotent or as an organization to serve the interests of the major powers, of which Japan is one. The same position arose in the Gran Chaco war between Paraguay and Bolivia, and its silent acquiescence in the decision of Herr Hitler on the 16th March to scrap the Treaty of Versailles and introduce conscription, was further evidence of its failure as an instrument for the preservation of peace. Finally, the events which have transpired in the present dispute have been such that it is no wonder that there are extreme doubts as to the genuineness of the League’s purpose. The League has ‘become the plaything of clever diplomats whose outlook is measured, not in terms of the general welfare of mankind, but rather in the sordid business of profit and gain. The attitude of organized Labour in this matter is inherently traditional. Its pioneers have always fought and struggled against war. And as the policy upon’ which the Government is now embarked must lead to conflict, we of this generation, whose privilege it is to speak for the great Labour movement, will take up the cudgels on behalf of peace with the same spirit and determination, and use all our resources to prevent the flower of the manhood of this country from being again sacrificed on a foreign battlefield. The supporters of the Government may argue as they choose and quote all the authorities that they can find to support their attitude. But they cannot baulk the application of ordinary commonsense to the plain situation facing Australia to-day. Arms, munitions, and other materials are to be made available to one of the combatants. Is it likely that the other ‘belligerent will fold its arms and fallow these instruments to be conveyed unhampered to its enemy? Ships transporting essential raw materials destined for Abyssinia will go from Australia, as from other parts of the world, and they will be manned- ‘by members of the Australian mercantile marine. At any stage of the voyage they may ‘be intercepted by a warship belonging to the nation against whom the sanctions are operating, and they may he sent to the .bottom of the sea. That act would’ be construed as hostile to Australia and would lead to war. We do not want war. We cannot afford another war. Let us not mislead ourselves on this subject, regardless of what overseas diplomats may say. Italy is certain to take some action to resist economic extinction. By the very .presence of H,M.A.S. Australia in the Mediterranean the Commonwealth would he a target for Italy’s retaliation.

Only one false move will call the nations to arms and in the present mood of international diplomacy, it would be but days before the world was ablaze. Australia would ‘be drawn into the vortex of war. If Parliament passes this bill, it will have put Australia into the front line of attack against Italy. The succeeding stages in the application of sanctions will rapidly follow, and once morewe shall have the sad duty of providing for war widows, as was the case only yesterday in regard to the bereaved of the Great War. The experiences of the last conflict were more than enough; let them he our lesson. Our appeal is to those who went through the horrors of war - in fact to all who have any regard for the preservation of Australian manhood. - to put the brake on this Government’s proposals; force it to check its reckless course before it is too late, and keep Australia out of the intrigues of the older world, the machinations of the armament rings, and the greed for gain which imperialism breeds. The Labour party opposed the preliminary stages of this bill, and will contest every successive stage because we are convinced that sanctions mean war. Therefore Australia must hold aloof.

Declaration of Urgency.

Mr MENZIES:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I declare this bill an urgentbill.

Question - That the bill be considered an urgent bill - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker. - Hon. G. J. Belt.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Mr MENZIES:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- I move-

That the time allotted in connexion with the bill be as follows: -

For the second reading until9 o’clock p.m. on Thursday, the 7th November.

For the committee stage until 11.15 o’clock p.m. on Thursday, the 7th November.

For the remaining stages until 11.45 o’clock p.m. on Thursday, the 7th November.

The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the bill is not, I think, unduly limited. We have the remainder of to-day, and the whole of two sitting days of next week until 11.45 p.m. on Thursday. For reasons already stated, the House will not assemble on Tuesday. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to fix Wednesday night for the expiration of the discussion, but because the first sitting day ofnext week . is Wednesday, I have altered the motion that I originally intended to move to provide for the consideration of the measure to occupy the whole of Wednesday and Thursday until 11.45 p.m.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- I hope that the House will not agree to the motion. The application of the guillotine to this measure appears to me to be entirely unwarranted. There is no absolute urgency about this measure. Even if we pass the billby next week it will not take effect against Italy until the date of its proclamation. Between the passing and the proclamation of the measure, there must he a long in- tel val. and under these circumstances the deliberative character of this chamber ought not to be sacrificed to the desires of the Government to have the bill treated as an urgent one. No other measure considered hy Parliament this session has been subjected to the application of the guillotine; yet, curiously enough, this is the most important measure that the legislature has been invited to consider.

It is nonsense to say that it is necessary to curtail the rights of members of Parliament to discuss this measure. Every honorable member of this Parliament has to justify his actions in this chamber to the country, and I would he surprised if members should calmly vote for or against this measure without giving some indication of their reasons. The fact that it is proposed to allow two days of next week for the discussion of this bill does not mean that the time allotted will be sufficient. If the time allotted is sufficient there is no necessity for the guillotine. If two days is not sufficient, the application of the guillotine is a distinct infringement of the rights of honorable members to discuss what is indeed a momentous hill. I protest emphatically against the application of the guillotine to this measure.

Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The House, having agreed that the bill shall be regarded as sin urgent measure, the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) has moved that certain times be allotted to discuss it. No reasons have been advanced as to why the Government regards the bill as urgent and the deductions which honorable members will be compelled to make must be purely speculative. We do not think that the measure is sufficiently urgent to necessitate the imposition of a time limit. We all must agree that of all the measures which have come before this Parliament during this session, or in fact since the great war, this must be considered the most important. From time to time we are asked to deal with many problems of an internal character involving the welfare of our own people, but as this measure carries us into a wider sphere it is the most important which this Parliament has had to discuss for many years. It is unreasonable to suggest that each of the 75 members of this chamber will have an opportunity in the limited time provided to speak on the bill. It may be said that some honorable members will not wish to exercise their right, but they should have the opportunity to speak if they so desire. If honorable members refrain from speaking they will be criticized in their electorates. Prior to moving that the bill be declared an urgent measure, the Attorney-General said in his secondreading speech that it was proposed to provide some breathing space between the passing of the bill and the application of the sanctions provided. This view should be sufficient to warrant that time be allowed to honorable members to discuss this measure. There should not he any undue haste. The imposition of a time limit on a measure of such importance is unwarranted, and we intend to oppose the motion.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I oppose the motion moved by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies). There has been a great deal of time wasted in discussing measures brought before this House.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

–

The honorable member is not in order in reflecting on the proceedings of the House.

Mr JAMES:

– Honorable members on this side of the chamber have attempted to expedite business by moving the closure to measures which they considered unimportant. A measure such as this, liable to involve Australia in war, should be debated without the imposition of a time limit. Some time ago it was arranged that the House should meet on Tuesdays of alternate weeks, but because the Melbourne Cup is to be run next Tuesday, the Government has decided that the House shall not meet until Wednesday. It is the duty of honorable members to attend Parliament to consider the business awaiting attention instead of being present at a race meeting; but apparently there has been some collaboration between certain interests. Persons who despatched urgent messages to the Prime Minister to expedite the passage of this measure are* now within the precincts of the House to urge the Government to proceed «s speedily as possible with the imposinon of sanctions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must discuss the motion before the Chair, which is the time allotted for the various stages of the bill.

Mr JAMES:

– In view of the importance of the subject we should be informed why the Government is so anxious to dispose of this bill within such a short period. There seems to bo an unholy alliance between the Government and certain other sections of the community. Honorable members on this side of the chamber have not deliberately held up any measure, but as this bill is infinitely more important than others which have been fully debated, we are justified in asking that a longer period be allowed for its discussion. Under the limitation of time proposed, not one-fourth of the members of the political group to which I belong will be allowed to speak before the guillotine falls. I protest strongly against the imposition of a time limit on such an important bill.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– No more important and farreaching measure has been brought before this chamber since I was elected a member last year. Considering the urgency of the bill, the Government has been extremely liberal in allowing until 9 p.m. on Thursday next for its discussion. It could be said that the measure is sufficiently urgent to justify the House meeting on other than the ordinary sitting days to enable Parliament to deal with it. We are lagging behind some other British countries in passing legislation of this character,’ because if the press reports are correct, the New Zealand Parliament has already passed a similar measure without a dissentientvoice. Honorable members cannot say that this measure has been sprung upon them suddenly, because the subjectmatter of the bill has been debated directly and indirectly ever since Parliament re-assembled on the 23rd September. The question of what would happen over the week-end has been the subject of some remarkable predictions on the part of the Opposition, none of which has been fulfilled. This is a subject upon which the Government has the right to expect Par liament to come -to an early decision. I doubt whether any member of either , branch of the legislature has not already considered the subject very carefully, and made up his mind how he intends to vote. I do not think that any honorable member is entitled to plead for an extension of time in order to form an opinion. In regard to matters pf this kind some honorable members would not in any circumstances have an opportunity to speak. On one or two occasions, when I should like to have debated a ‘bill before the House, I was precluded from doing so. That is only to be expected.

Mr Prowse:

– All honorable members will be able to record their votes.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– That is so.

Mr Garden:

-. - We are not machines. We do not do just what we are told.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I should not like any Minister to tell me what I have to do. Honorable members on this side of the chamber exercise greater freedom in matters of this kind than do honorable members opposite.

Mr Garden:

– We have been told that we shall not have the right to speak. .

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I have not been so informed. In any case no Minister has the right to say that. If Australia is to fulfil its obligations to the League of Nations, of which it is a member, certain action must be taken.. This measure contains the collective wisdom of some of the most important nations in regard to an urgent matter of world politics. The measure is of such urgency that a limitation of time is necessary.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– This subject is so important, and its potentialities so tragic, that no honorable member should ‘be prevented, from expressing his opinions upon it. It is too big to be regarded as a party question. It affects the life blood of our people to such an extent that, even if a time limit were not imposed, I do not think that there would be a lot of useless discussion upon it. I am speaking on behalf of any honorable member who may desire to express his opinion on this all-important issue. Discussion should not be stifled. In all probability the time allowed for the second-reading debate will be sufficient but if one Honorable member is prevented, by the exercise of the “ guillotine “, from taking part in the discussion upon a subject such as this, which may not again arise in our lifetime, a wrong will be done to him. The Government, in attempting to rush this legislation through with unreasonable haste, is hiding in a coward’s castle. I do not think it is true, as the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) said, that there is any great haste for the passage of the bill. I doubt that wc are lagging behind the governments of other countries in giving effect to the recommendations of the Sanctions Co-ordination Committee of the League of Nations. The governments of most countries, I imagine, are hoping that the terms of peace will be settled before the time comes for the enforcement of the sanctions.. Why, then, should Australia be in such a hurry to court the ill-will of the nationals of another country? We all hope that the events of the next few days may render unncessary the enforcement of sanctions, so there may be no need to come to grips with the Italian people and disturb the peaceful relations that exist between this country and Italy. The negotiations for the settlement of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia were put in train long, before Italy was declared the aggressor nation, and they have been carried on ever since. Most people are hoping that even next week an armistice may be declared. I again protest against this attempt to prevent any honorable member from expressing his opinion on this important subject.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.: - I emphatically protest, against the attempt by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) to stifle the discussion on this very important subject, [n doing, so I remind the Minister that in his maiden speech in this House oh the 2nd November, 1934, he expressed his regret that party feelings so often intruded in the discussion of subjects that came before this, chamber, and he concluded by saying; -

Whether we are in opposition: or in office, the time- has come when- we must pool all our mental resources, and engage in some concerted thought about these most elementary and fundamental features of tire greatest problem which confronts us.

No other construction can be placed upon the observations of the Attorney-General than that it was his- desire that, in thediscussion of measures in this House,, honorable members, regardless of party affiliations, should he untrammelled in debate and that there should be a genuine attempt to pool the mental resources of the House for the elucidation of problems that come before us. It is, therefore, to he regretted that the Minister should, to-day, submit a motion, theeffect of which is to prevent the mental resources’ of the House from being pooled ; this, too,, in the consideration of the most important subject that, has ever come before the House. Yesterday the Minister, in moving the second reading of this bill, said -

I hope these considerations will make it clear to everybody that some breathing, space will exist between the discussion of this bill and the coming into effect of the sanctions provided for.

If there is to be some breathing space; as suggested by the Attorney-General, between the submission of the measure and the operation of the provisions, contained in it, th& Minister stands condemned for the motion, which he has submitted. It is all very well for the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) to say that members have the privilege of voting for or against the bill. That is about the only privilege that is left to them. Whilst every honorable member with the exception of the honorable member for the Northern Territory may vote on all measures submitted, it is significant that, in the discussion of the most important issue that has ever come before this Parliament, very few supporters of the Government have the courage to give the reasons for the manner in which they intend to cast their votes. If they are content to ‘be like dumb, driven cattle, and are willing; to follow the Government wherever it. drives, them, well and good. In due time: they will he required toanswer for their attitude on this ‘bill. I protest that, whilst we certainly have the privilege of voting on the measure, the greater privilege of expressing our views, is to be denied to us. I hope theAttorneyGeneral will see the wisdom of allowing honorable members more timefor the discussion of the bill, because if the consequences which we predict spring from the passage of the measure, the time will come when every honorable member will have to answer to his constituents for his vote. The opportunity should be given to them in the debate on the bill to explain the reasons for their vote. If the Attorney-General really desires the mental resources of the House to be pooled-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · Batman · UAP

– I submit to the House and to the AttorneyGeneral in particular that the operation of what is known as the guillotine is open to very grave objection. Usually I am opposed to what is familiarly known as the gag, hut I think the exercise of the closure has points of advantage over a motion for the allotment of time. In the first place, by allotting time for the discussion of a measure we prejudge the importance of the debate as well as the time which will be occupied in the debate on it. That, I consider, is a very grave objection to the use of the guillotine. We prejudge also the question whether, as in this case, the bill is really an urgent measure.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The time allowed under the Standing Orders for discussion of the motion has expired.

Question - That the motion he agreed to - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Second Reading

Debate resumed from page 1274.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I regard this as one of the most serious measures brought before this Parliament since the ratification of the peace treaties, which concluded the last war. Incorporated with those peace treaties, as every one knows, was the Covenant of the League of Nations, the signatories to which accepted certain responsibilities under it. By that Covenant an attempt was made to devise a method for the settlement of international disputes different from what had previously prevailed. In consequence of the attachment of its signature to the Covenant, Australia became pledged, in the event of certain conditions arising out of an act of aggression by any member of the League, to undertake certain restrictive action against that power with a view to bringing it to reason.

The objective of the League of Nations is not to cause or to foster war, but to try to prevent it. That, too, was the principle underlying all the steps taken by different powers and groups of powers subsequent to the establishment of the League. It runs right through the decisions come to at Locarno, and formulated in the Pact of Paris. The Commonwealth of Australia, having been a deliberate party to all of these undertakings, must view with very grave concern its responsibility which has now arisen under article 16 of the Covenant.

Two occasions have been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) upon which, it is alleged, the League of Nations failed to take appropriate action under certain articles of the Covenant. One was in regard to what is known as the Gran Chaco war. If honorable members will consider the economic position of the two powers concerned, they will realize that the imposition of sanctions against them was not quite the easy matter it might at first glance appear to have been.

Mr Brennan:

– Is the imposition of sanctions in the present dispute an easy matter ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The present dispute is on an entirely different footing. The case of Manchuria also has been raised. I contend that the Manchurians themselves have the right to a voice in their own affairs. As I understand the history of the Ear East, Manchuria has never agreed to the claim that it was part and parcel of the Chinese empire or the Chinese republic. The four provinces which the Chinese call the Eastern Provinces, and which the Manchurians, I believe rightly, call Manchuria, were an independent power for hundreds of years, and their association with China in what was known to white people as the Chinese empire, and latterly the Chinese republic, was due to the fact that the last conquest of China was undertaken by the Manchurian people, and those who then invaded that country became absorbed in its people. But in many respects Manchuria remained an altogether separate entity. There is qute a lot of very sound argument in justification of certain action taken by Japan.

Mr Mahoney:

– The shooting of women and children cannot be justified.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I am not justifying that. We have to consider these matters, not in the light of our particular prejudices but in the way in which certain other interested parties happen to view them.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable member could justify the invasion of South Africa on similar grounds. The Boers have never regarded themselves as belonging to the British Empire.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– That is not correct. At the time of the South African war, as every honorable member should know, the two South African republics were subject to an Act of Allegiance to the British Empire, and could not do certain things without prior reference to London.

The third occasion upon which what can without doubt be termed an act of aggression came before the League of Nations was when Italy made an unprovoked attack upon Abyssinia. The honorable member for ‘ Lilley (Sir Donald Cameron) informed the House in a previous debate that he was at Geneva when Abyssinia was accepted, with the support of Italy, as a member of the League of Nations. I shall not enter into the pros and cons of whether it should have been admitted, because, were I to do so, I should feel obliged to discuss the claims of other countries also. The important fact is that Abyssinia was admitted with the consent and the assistance of Italy.

Last year Italy commenced the concentration of military forces in colonies that it holds adjacent to the Ethiopian kingdom, and the outcome after many months of preparation was the invasion of Abyssinia. The League of Nations subsequently decided that Italy was the aggressor, and that acts described as sanctions should be put into operation against that country by other signatories to the Covenant of the League. If, by the application of economic pressure, the world can avert open resort to acts of war, a very big stride will have been made towards the preservation of peace, about which so much is heard, but which seems somewhat difficult of attainment.

Honorable members opposite, to my extreme surprise, have adopted to-day the attitude that Australia cannot support the imposition of any restrictions upon exports to a country that is engaged in war. As a student of politics for many years, I assert that the traditional attitude of the Labour party is the exact opposite. I can recall speeches and articles by the leaders of that party year after year in affirmation of the principle that, in the event of Australia becoming involved in hostilities, the export of materials necessary for the prosecution of the warshould he prohibited. The present dispute we cannot ignore on account of our international obligations ; yet,instead of adopting the attitude that, so far as we areable, we should deny to the power which has broken its solemn obligations, the wherewithal to conduct hostile operations, honorable members opposite argue that we should stand aside and not only he completely indifferent to the fate of the country which is attacked, but also take what, to my mind, is a more serious course, that of willingly supplying to the aggressor the materials that it needs for the continuance of its unprovoked attack. In the circumstances I feel obliged to cite certain statements made by the Leader of the Oppositionindebates in this House in which he discussed Australia’s obligations as a member of the League of Nations. Those statements seem to me to have been specially prepared to set out very cleanlyhis views on the problems inseparable from Australia’s membership of the League. The honorable member, I remind the House, was a member of the Australian delegation to the League of Nations in 1924. On the 6th December, 1929, he delivered a speech, reported in volume 122 of Hansard in which he made the following observations: -

There is related to the problem of defence the great problem of international association, 1,924. I concluded that the representation of Australia internationally is about the only contribution that we can effectively make towards a cementing of the antagonisms of the old world. We must participate in this movement because it is part of the process of civilization. We should not remain outside it. A knowledge of international difficulties, and of what is being proposed internationally to deal with them, is essential to the people of Australia, and more essential to those who havea definite responsibility imposed upon them.

The honorable member now says that we should not concern ourselvesabout European quarrels, but should have nothing whatever to do with them. We should not, he now says, take cognizance of anything that goes on in Europe. When the honorable member made the speech to which I have just referred, there was no sign of any rupture of international relations and no need for the Australian Labour party to make up its mind on a vital issue - a difficult process at times I admit. Under those circumstances he said that we mustgive consideration to the problems of the Old World andmust try toocementtheantagonisms that exist there.

Mr.Brennan. - That is entirelyconsisftent with what he has said incon- nexion withtheItalo-Abyssinian dispute.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The honorable member is reported at page 856 of the same volume of Hansard in the following terms -

Then let us be as ready to spend money in furthering the policy of the League of Nations as we are to spend money on any other policy, because the causeof peace is more important in this generation than it will be in the next. If the policy of peace is accepted by the peoples of the earth within the next decade, there willbe no need in the next generation for a policy of resisting war. The British and the great powers of Europe need not worry about the possibilities of war for the next ten fifteen or twenty years, becausethe whole history of warfare teaches us that it takes a nation a generation to recover from a great world war. The bankers will not permit the countries of the world to fight each other again until they havebeen paid for thelast war. There should certainly be a more regular and definite contribution by this Parliament to the cause of peace, and the elimination of international conflict.

The honorable gentleman’s view then was that we had as much right to spend public money to further the objects of the League as we had to spend it to further any other policy. I did not hear that speech hut I have no doubt that it was amemorable occasion when the honorable member appeared in this chamber in the guise of a prophet and assured Parliament that Australia had no need to fear the possibility of another world war for at least a generation because the bankers would not allow the nations to begin another war until they had paid for the last one. The honorable member was either seriously astray in his calculations, or he has an awkward explanation to make now in connexion with the attitude of the Labour party.

Subsequently, on the 4th August, 1930, the honorable member participated in a budget debate in this chamber in which he confined his remarks entirely to the League of Nations. If I remember rightly he exhausted the time allowed him on that occasion. He said among other things that -

There are many instances in which it appears difficult for Australia to steer a course consistent with that of Great Britain, because of the inevitable points of divergence on economic policy, which must arise between Great Britain and Australia, particularly with respect to, that part of the work of the League which comes within the ambit of the International Labor Office.

I do not desire to do the honorable member an injustice so I emphasize that it was only on the question of economic policy that he saw any possibility of divergence of opinion.

Mr Curtin:

– The honorable member knows that the International Labour Office deals only with economic and labour matters.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– But the subject with which the honorable member was dealing was the League of Nations. He suggested then that we should save the expense of sending a Minister from Australia to represent us at the Assembly of the League. He said -

I think it would be quite sufficient for Australia to arrange with the British Government to, attach to the British delegation a representative Australian officer conversant with international problems, who would always be available, andwho would be able to inform the Commonwealth Government upon the work and general development of the League’s functions. No Australian delegate at the Assemblies of the League has yet found it necessary to adopt an attitude distinct from that of the British delegation.

The then honorable member for Wimmera, Mr. Percy Stewart, interjected as follows : -

But some issue might arise in the future which would necessitate such a course.

The reply of the honorable member for Fremantle was illuminating. He said -

Itmight; but, if it should, Ithink we could assume that it would be only in an emergency sense, when, our delegate would not he in possession of any advice from this Parliament as to the course to follow.

During the debates that have occurred, in this chamber in the last few weeks on the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, we have been told many times of the fearful things that might happen if Australia did not maintain direct and unbroken contact with Geneva; but, in 1930, just five years ago, the honorable member actually suggested that, in order to save the cost of sending a Minister to represent us at Geneva, which he estimated at £2,500, we should appoint a junior officer of the staff of Australia House to be our representative. He went on to say -

The seat of the League has been regarded as arallying point to which the nations send direct representatives for a general purpose. The League is really a sort of international parliament, at which everything is discussed and nothing is done, although, of course, it has always considered it imperative, if any progress were to be made in any specific field, to hold a conference for that purpose. Hence Geneva, Washington, Locarno, London, and so on. Then, again, the League hopes that there will be a mutual guarantee of territory and independence. Even the covenanters to the League have admitted that its work, despite all its paraphernalia, such as the Court of International Justice, its machinery for the administration of mandated territories, and its organization established in Europe, is merelyto negate, wherever possible, possible sources of conflict in Europe that may threaten international peace. But the world will not liveby negations. It is not attracted by and will not take interest in such apolicy.

What is the policy of the Australian Labour party to-day? There is not a spark of positivism in it. The Opposition, with the exception of one of its members, is advocating a policy of straightout, undiluted’, unqualified^ negation. The honorable member said further -

I can see no hope, for the League of Nations unless it does tangible things that are demonstrable to communities generally. For us to say that we prevented a certain thing from happening is equivalent to saying that we prevented stars from colliding and destroying the world. If a thing may happen, and does not happen, the people will say that, in all probability it never would have happened. But if we show that something worth doing has been done, the evidence is there and the people are able to see the effect of the operation of the machines that have been established.

For the first time in its history - and I am glad to say so, as one of its most consistent critics - the League of Nations has dared to tell one. of its strongest members that it has done an injustice to one of its weakest members, in which category Australia falls, and other great countries have banded together in order to see that the aggressor shall not continue such a transgression. However, instead of supporting a positive policy of the nature he propounded in 1930, the Leader of the Opposition to-day has nothing to offerbut a policy of straight out negation; his attitude is that of Mahatma Gandhi - “Let the world go on, we enclose ourselves within our own narrow limits “. Because of its change of policy in this matter the Opposition to-day should want to bury not only its head, but also its body, but it could not find in Australia a sandbank big enough to hide it in its shame. The Leader of the Opposition also said -

The Covenant into which we have entered is the first in which Australia, as a nation, has definitely entered into contractual relations with the world. We are part and parcel of this League . .

Injustice done to fellahs of Egypt or coolies of India is an injustice to the workers of Birm ingham or Paddington.

Apparently an injustice to the tribesmen of Abyssinia is not to be put in the same category as injustices to the fellahs of Egypt, or the coolies of India. To-day the Opposition is prepared to make an exception in regard to the present dispute. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) said it was undesirable that we should! take any action that would put us out of step with one of the great commercial countries, Italy. The honorable gentleman entirely overlooked the fact that it might be a better policy for Australia to remain in step with the 54 countries which support the League of Nations in its attitude towards Italy. The Leader of the Opposition also declared, “ Italy may threaten us with war”. Just fancy! Last evening wo listened to a most learned dissertation by that intellectual shillelagh of the Labour party, the honorable member for Batman-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The honorable member drew upon all his ingenuity, knowledge, experience and reading to show that Australia is immune from attack.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member is not in order in referring to remarks made in another debate during the course of the present session.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– Apparently the honorable member is of the opinion that we could live in Australia under better conditions than exist in this country to-day if we were entirely cut off from the rest of the world. The attitude adopted by the Labour party on this matter to-day represents a complete reversal of form. We must contrast its attitude with that adopted by Labour parties in other countries within the British Empire. For instance, New

Zealand, our nearest neighbour, has already passed legislation identical with this without one dissentient voice being raised by a member of the Labour party in its parliament. In England not long ago a conference was held under the auspices of the Trade Union Council to consider this matter, and the secretary of that body, Sir Walter Citrine, after the conference had agreed to a resolution, said -

The resolution re-affirmed the faith of the Congress in a collective peace system of operating within the League of .Nations, and demanded adequate measures of disarmament and an international agreement on the manufacture, sale, and transport of arms. It also called upon the British Government to take the initiative in convening a new conference to achieve this purpose.

The declaration averred that an Italian war of conquest in Abyssinia would be a violation of the sanctity of international treaties, and that such violation of treaties was destructive of the foundation of civilization. The resolution called upon the British Government, in co-operation with other nations in the -League, to use all measures provided by the Covenant to prevent Italy’s “ Unjust and rapacious attack upon the territory of a fellow member of the League “.

It pledged the firm support of the Congress “ to any action consistent with the treaties and statutes of the League “ to restrain Italy and uphold the authority of the League in enforcing peace.

On that resolution 2,962,000 votes were cast and only 177,000 were against it. That demonstrates the opinion of British Labour on this matter, and shows, furthermore, that there is an almost unbridgable gulf between the attitude adopted by British Labour and that adopted by the Australian Labour party.

When we deal with the imposition of these sanctions a moral aspect has . to be considered. We have to ask ourselves whether the signature of a Minister empowered to represent this country in treaty-making conventions is worth the paper on which it is written. If it is the declared policy of the Australian Labour party on all matters of this description to assume an attitude of absolute isolation, then a very awkward time is ahead for this Commonwealth should it happen, unfortunately, that the Opposition gained control of the government, and were charged with the responsibility of carrying into effect international undertakings to which Australia is a party. I am astounded at the failure of the Opposition to apprehend this possibility. Members of the Opposition have talked for years of the necessity for refusing to resort to arms as a method of settling international disputes. Whilst they agree that there should exist an international court and an international code for the settlement of international disputes, they claim that there must be absolutely no trial or penalty imposed upon an offender against such a code. That principle could not be applied in the government of this country, because it would not work. If international obligations are not to be meaningless and reduced to the level of a farce, any combination of nations, such as the League, must not only have a criminal code, but must also place on every member the obligation to protect any other member which is subjected to an unprovoked attack. We have heard a good deal of the difficulty of restricting imports into Italy. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) mentioned what at first sight appeared to he a strong point when he referred to petrol. But I suggest that the inclusion of petrol in the sanctions has not been lost sight of. The Covenant of the League of Nations provides not for the full application of sanctions immediately, but for a progressive application. I have no doubt that, as time goes on, petrol and other commodities will be added to the list of things which may not be sent to Italy.

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

– The Covenant provides for the gradual application of pressure.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The process is the same as that which a Labour government would adopt in giving effect to its platform ; it would proceed stepby step. A Labour government would not immediately give effect to the whole of its policy; it would proceed cautiously, otherwise the result would be chaos.

Can honorable members conceive of a more effective sanction than the prohibition of imports from Italy. Competition between nations is keen, and Italy will have to be careful or it will he deprived of markets which will he difficult to regain.

The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), who leads the

New South Wales Labour party in this House, spoke of France leaving the United Kingdom to bear the burden. Although there is evidence of some reluctance on the part of France to face the real issue, the fact remains that France has at no time failed to respond to pressure brought to bear by Britain. We have no right to assume that France will default in regard to its obligation and leave the United Kingdom to bear the whole burden. Authoritative spokesmen for Great Britain have made it clear that Britain will not singly attack Italy, or impose a blockade, but that sanctions must be imposed collectively. Article 16 of the Covenant imposes a collective obligation, and consequently honorable members who say that Britain, without assistance, will be left to fight Italy are beating the air. Although they may mislead the public, they cannot mislead themselves by suggesting that Great Britain might be foolish enough tobecome involved in a conflict with Italy without the assistance of other members of the League. Mr. George Lansbury, who, until recently, was leader of the British Labour party, in an interview which was reported in the News Chronicle of the 22nd August, said that the Labour party will take its stand by the Covenant, and affirm the necessity for the Government to fulfil its obligations under it. An obligation rests on honorable members opposite to explain the difference between the policy of the Australian Labour party and the traditional attitude of the Labour party in other parts of the Empire.

Mr Ward:

– What about the opinions expressed by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I hold no brief for the right honorable member who at different times in his career has expressed a great number of opinions. When it comes to looking after himself, the right honorable member for North Sydney will not be found incapable. In view of statements said to be contained in a book which the right honorable gentleman has written, I should not be surprised if once again he is found sitting in Opposition.

Mr Curtin:

– He is a leading member of the Government, and cannot he disposed of so easily as that.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– It is not my duty, but that of the Government, to dispose of him. With a bill of this description before Parliament, it is remarkable that a prominent member of the Government should publish a book containing the statements which have been referred to in the press reviews of the book. Such a state of affairs is inconsistent with the traditions of Cabinet Government in British countries.

The Opposition has said that it is not possible to quote any competent authority who considers that sanctions do not mean war. I am not surprised that there should be a difference of opinion on matters like this. Unlike parliaments the League of Nations is not an old institution. But although Parliaments have been long established, widely divergent views are still expressed in them. Is it to be expected that an instrument emanating from a recently formed institution, and translated into a number of different languages, willbe free from criticism? The wonder is not that there are different interpretations of certain articles of the Covenant, but that there is such a degree of unanimity in regard to many of them. We can take the opinions expressed by such men as Lord Robert Cecil, who was reported in the London Times of the 24th August as having stated, in reply to Lord Hardinge, who takes exactly the same attitude as the Opposition in this Parliament, that -

Finally, if Lord Hardinge’s doctrine is now sound, it was sound months ago when Abyssinia first appealed to the League. If we were not prepared to carry out our League obligations to her, we ought to have so informed her then.

That is a strong point. This matter has not been placed before Parliament in a hurry. It has developed since last Christmas, and I have heard no suggestion previously by members of the Opposition that we should inform Abyssinia, which certainly has some rights under the Covenant of the League of Nations, that, in the event of hostilities occurring, we did not intend to support it. Lord Robert Cecil continued -

Instead of that our chief Ministers, very properly as I think, re-affirmed our loyalty to the League and re-asserted that the Covenant - without any reservation - was the sheet anchor of our foreign policy. If we leave Abyssinia in the lurch now we shall be guilty of an unpardonable breach of faith, for which wo shall unquestionably suffer in the near future. It is not a question of “ punishing the recalcitrant member “, but upholding the efficiency of an instrument which successive Prime Ministers have declared to be the best safeguard for peace.

There is an onus on the shoulders of the Opposition to state publicly its attitude towards the League of Nations. It has denounced everything that has come from Geneva in the last few weeks. Is it prepared to renounce Geneva and urge that Australia should resign its membership of the League? The Government is standing by all of the Commonwealth’s obligations, but the Opposition is trying to evade them, and it has a responsibility to the country to state definitely and in unequivocal language exactly where it stands regarding the League of Nations. Honorable members opposite cannot shirk that responsibility. We know the history of the Labour party, and we know that when a crisis looms - and such a crisis is upon us now - that party must take a definite stand. It has always done so. Australia is under an obligation to give two years’ notice before it can be released from its commitments under the League Covenant. There has been no suggestion so far that the Opposition has determined to take that course. We shall look forward with interest to its decision in this matter.

If we are to take the stand that we will leave the rest of the Empire to sink or swim, whatever the case may be, in this crisis, we can look forward to no better treatment from the other members of the Empire. Furthermore, if we remain in the League of Nations we have to honour our obligations, or we cannot expect the other members of the League to honour theirs, if we should be faced with circumstances similar to those of the unfortunate Abyssinians to-day.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- Reference has been made to the “traditional attitude of Labour “ and it has been indicated by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) that the traditional attitude of Labour is opposed to such action as is now proposed by the Government. If such a traditional atti- tude has developed, it has developed very quickly, because the traditional attitude of the Labour party, until a short while ago, was directly opposed to that which the honorable member has declared to-day. That is the attitude of a great number of Labour bodies and supporters of Labour in Australia to-day. Not only in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, but practically throughout the world, Labour supports the proposal that sanctions should be applied against Italy. This, I think, is the only country where Labour does not support the policy of economic sanctions. Even in Australia a large section of the Labour Movement favours such sanctions. In France the great C.G.T. - the General Confederation of Labour - supports the economic boycott of Italy. The American Federation of Labour, which is probably the most conservative Labour organization in the world, has declared that by its adherence to the International Labour Office it is a supporter of the League of Nations. It has urged the President to take all necessary steps to prevent Italy from invading and conquering Abyssinia. The same opposition to the Italian campaign in Abyssinia has ‘been expressed by Labour all over the world. The two great international organizations to which all the socialist bodies in the world are attached - the Second (SocialDemocrat) International, and the Third (Communist) International, known as the Comintern, which have been fighting each other for years, are now united in the one policy of supporting the economic boycott of Italy. Associated with them is the International Federation of Trade Unions, the organization of the “ right wing “ trade unions.

In our own country we have the policy which was adopted by the Melbourne Trades Hall Council at the conference of the Victorian State Labour party in January. Of course, it does not hind all the members of the party, but it indicates the feeling of the Australian Labour party and the Trades and Labour Council in Victoria ‘before this dispute arose. A publication - Labour’s Case Against W ar and. Fascism - has been issued by the Labour Anti-war Committee representing the Melbourne Trades Hall Council and the Australian Labour party. It sets out the declarations made by the council and the State Conference. They are -

1. The economic causes of war and the fact that its effectual abolition can only be achieved by the establishment of socialism or the common ownership of the means of production.
2. The military significance of fascism, which overthrows parliamentary control by force, facilitates capitalist war and provokes civil war. .
3. Opposition to war which threatens the national right of self-determination and socialism in any country.
4. The severance of political relations with nations engaged in capitalist war, and an embargo on the import or export of raw materials to and from Australia.
5. The promotion of fraternal relationships with any country which stands as a force of world peace.
6. Industrial support of the Australian workers for the workers of any nations who are resisting capitalist wars.

The pamphlet goes on to declare a policy of action laid down by the council and the conference, which includes the following : -

Industrial Action.

To urge on all workers the necessity of refusing (a) to produce goods to be utilized in the event of a capitalist war being declared ; (6) to transport such goods in the event of a capitalist war being declared; and (c) to urge on the people the necessity for fighting by every means in their power for the removal of any government engaged in capitalist war.

So late as the 10th October of this year, the Sydney Trades and Labour Council carried, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution from which the following words are an extract: -

We condemn all imperialist wars and the war of Italian Fascism in Abyssinia, and demand the immediate severance of political and trade relations with nations engaged in capitalist wars and that an embargo be placed on the export of war materials from Australia.

Never has there been a more definite declaration of policy than this advocacy that economic force should he used as a means of preventing international war. That policy even now is being re-affirmed over and over again by Labour bodies throughout Australia. A division of opinion has developed. Some people say that that is a proper policy for Australia to enforce by itself, but that we should not co-operate with the League of Nations in enforcing it. I do not agree with that.

It is much better for the nations to cooperate in a common policy, and to coordinate it, having regard to their individual capacity and resources, than for each to impose its own embargoes. The opinion on the League appears to be divided. The leader of my own party believes in the League, and thinks that Australia should retain its membership of it. Other members of the Labour party regard it merely as a capitalist association for the purpose of preventing wars which are against the interests of the great powers. Personally, I have never been an enthusiastic admirer of the League. I believe that it has failed in its work, over and over again; but I propose to support it on an occasion when I consider that it is trying to do the work for which it was created.

In the interests of Australia, and of the Australian Labour movement, we should support this bill. The statement has been made that, if we agree to the economic boycott of Italy, war will be the natural result. If the policy of economic boycott failed, I think that war would undoubtedly occur, not necessarily immediately, but shortly, and in that war Australia and other countries would be involved. I believe that the only possibility of avoiding a great world conflict lies in the successful enforcement of the policy of economic sanctions. I am not confident that that policy will be successfully enforced, but I sincerely hope that it will. If it succeeds, it will prevent Italy from going on with its operations in Abyssinia. War will not follow from that. A nation which attempts to apply sanctions to Italy may, of course, bc attacked by it. That danger makes it desirable to have co-operation with the other nations. It is conceivable that, if Australia were the only country to impose the sanctions, Italy would attack it but is it to be expected that, out of all the nations opposing her, Italy will single out Australia for attack. If the policy of collective sanctions is too offensive for us to risk, why are we not deterred by the much greater risk of giving offence which is involved in the White Australia policy and the Ottawa Agreement? When we do anything that affects the racial pride or economic interests of another country, there is always the danger of provoking war; yet we are not deterred from giving effect to our national policies ‘ by fears that an offended nation will avenge itself by war. The application of economic sanctions against Italy cannot involve Australia in war because it cannot be committed to any action without its own consent. The League of Nations is not a supranational legislature. It does not issue decrees which are enforced by it in this country; it merely makes decisions, and asks the members of the League to adhere to them. If they refuse to do so, the worst that can happen to them is that their membership may be cancelled. I quote the opinion of Mr. H. E. Boote - that famous and venerable name - for mors than any other single propagandist he contributed to the defeat of conscription. In the Austraiian Worker of the 23rd October Mr. Boote said -

I listen unconvinced when told that if we are in favour of trying to halt a guilty warmaker by ceasing to sell him certain articles, or to lend him credits, we are thereby bound to go to war with him should those steps prove of no avail. Reader, no non-military measures against war can logically drive us into war ourselves. Always we can say, “ Wo are opponents of war, and for that reason will not adopt war as a cure for war. But, being opposed to war, we will do all we can, short of war, to hinder, hamper or thwart the makers of war.

In a recent issue of the Queensland Worker appeared a front page cartoon, which reflected the view of many workers in Australia. A giant Mars was depicted approaching a small figure representing the world. As the God of war advanced, the small figure, which was seated at a table, drew from a drawer a pistol labelled “ Sanctions and said to Mars, “ We are not so frightened of you now as we were “.

Many imagine that Australia can hold itself aloof from the troubles of the old world. Even if we were an independent nation, without commitments to any other peoples, if like America, we tried to adopt the traditional Washingtonian policy of “ no foreign entanglements “, it would be impossible for us to remain indifferent to international affairs. But Australia, by its own will, and with the approval of my own party, is a constituent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the League of Nations. We support the League, and we desire Australia to continue to be a member of it. We do not wish that we should get the benefits of membership of the League without cooperating in its policies; and my party has declared over and over again that we desire this country to remain a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This House, under the leadership of a Labour government, adopted the declarations,which, later, were embodied inthe Statute of Westminster. These declare that the bond between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations is common allegiance to the Crown and not subjection to the British Parliament. That means that, even if we think, as some people have said, that Great Britain is planning a capitalistic war, and that a spread of the conflict is inevitable, there is nothing we can do to detach ourselves from it short of actual secession. If such a war takes place, although Australia will not be bound to send men to take part in it, it will he unable to trade with Britain’s enemies and will be exposed to attack by them. We cannot remain a member of the BritishCommonwealth of Nations, and, at the same time, remain immune from attack when a fellow member is engaged in war.

It seems to me perfectly clear that the true attitude of the Labour Movement in Australia should be that adopted by the Labour Movement throughout the world, and this view is already shared by a large section of the Australian Labour Movement. I regret that I differ from other honorable members of my party in this House, and I have the greatest reluctance in doing so. I would not adopt this attitude if I did not believe this matter tobe of paramount importance to this country and to our movement. I remind honorable members that, although on the matter of economic action, the Australian Labour Movement is divided, yet on the policy of resisting military action the whole of the Labour Movement is determinedly united.

Motion (by Mr. E. j. Harrison) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority…… 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned.

House adjourned at 3.53 p.m.

page 1287

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Australian Imperial Force.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

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

1. 331,781.

2 -

Municipal Land Values

Mr Blackburn:

n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Will he direct that the municipal valuation of lands compulsorily acquired by his department shall- bc accepted by it as indicating the value of such land?

Mr Paterson:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– Section 29 of the Lands Acquisition Act provides that the value of any lands compulsorily acquired shall be the value as at the 1st January before the date of acquisition. It is the practice to obtain valuations from reputable valuators, not connected with the Government in any way. Usually three independent valuations are obtained, and as far as possible valuators with special knowledge of the district in which the land is situated are selected. It is not proposed to depart from the established practice.

Governor-General’s Residences

Mr James:

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

1. Is it proposed to provide a residence for the new Governor-General in Sydney and Melbourne ?
2. Have negotiations been entered into for the purchase of a residence in Melbourne?
3. What is the estimated purchase price of this residence?
4. What sum is it proposed to expend on the renovation of Admiralty House, Sydney?

Mr Lyons:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is are follows : - 1 to 4. These matters are receiving consideration, but no finality has been reached.

Military Training Schools

Dr Maloney:

y asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

In view of the fact that the cost per cadet formerly at the Royal Military College at Duntroon was approximately £15 a week, will he have a return prepared showing the cost per unit for each cadet in the military schools and colleges of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States of America?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– Inquiries will be made and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as early as possible.

Postal Department: Transmission on Publications Refused.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

n asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Will he supply the House with the names of the newspapers whose transmission through the post has been refused on the ground that they have been deemed to be issued by, on behalf of, or in the interest of, unlawful associations ?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as possible.

Rifle Clubs

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

en asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

With reference to the recent representations made by honorable members to the Minister, following on the proposed reduction of the free issue of ammunition to members of rifle clubs and the amount that has been made available at reduced rates, is he yet in a position to say if the issue will be restored on the basis of the ratio previously provided?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The position is, as has already been stated by me to a deputation of members of Parliament and in correspondence, that the stocks of ammunition have become so depleted that a reduction of thefree issue has been rendered imperative, particularly under existing conditions. As the Government appreciates the work of the rifle clubs, the matter is being further and sympathetically examined.

Canberra:LeasingandRenovationof brassey House.

Mr Mahoney:

y asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

1. In view of the proposed leasing of Brassey House toprivate enterprise, willhe take steps to assure the positions of the manageress and members of the staff who have been employed by the department for a period totalling five years ?
2. In reaching a decision on this question will he take into consideration the fact that Brassey House has by far the most satisfactory financial record of any of the Government’s hotels or hostels?

Mr.Paterson. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions arc as follows : -

1. IfBrassey House should be leased the staff not retained by the lessee will be absorbed as far as possible in other boarding establishments conducted by the Department of the Interior, at Canberra. This has been the practice in respect of all hotels and boarding establishments which have been leased.
2. Yes.

Mr Mahoney:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

1. Will he make an immediate announcement of the department’s intentions with regard to the repainting of bedrooms at Brassey House following the examination of the rooms on the 31st October by an officer of the department?
2. If the decision is against repainting, will the department state why the examining officer did not consider it necessary to accede to the request of a resident to inspect portion of the walls of a room which was covered by furniture during his first examination?

Mr.Paterson. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

1. It is not proposed to repaint the bedrooms at Brassey House. Any representations in regard to specific rooms made by the successful tenderer for a lease of the premises will receive consideration.
2. It is presumed that the honorable member refers to a room visited by the Inspecting Officer, where the occupant was lying on the bed. The officer did not inspect the wall covered by furniture, because be was of opinion that, if redecoration was to be carried out, the room in question was one that should receive attention.

Wireless Telephones

Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

k asked the Minister repre senting the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Has the Postmaster-General’s Department considered the provision of wireless telephones for isolated areas; if so, is such provision likely to bo made in the near future?

Mr.ArchdaleParkhill. - The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follow: -

The department has onvarious occasions considered the provision of wireless telephone services for isolated areas in the interior, and is now co-operating with the inland mission and other persons by licensing installations capable of providing wireless telephoneservice. This question generally is now receiving comprehensive consideration.

Wirelessbroadcasting:b-class Stations.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

1. What is the number of B-class broadcasting stations throughout the Commonwealth, and the number in each State?
2. What are the registered names of the owners of each broadcasting station, giving the official number and distinguishing letters of each station?

Mr.ArchdaleParkhill. - The information is being obtained.

Bass Strait Air Disaster

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice - 1.Has he any further information concerning the recent loss of the Loina in Bass Strait?

2. Can he indicate whether amphibians ore being seriously considered for this service?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

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

1. There is no information available other than that contained in the interim report of the Air Accidents Investigation Committee, which has already been made public.
2. I am not aware of any proposal to substitute amphibians for the land-planes now in use on the Tasmanian service. There is no reason to believe that the fate of the occupants of the two machines involved in the unfortunate accidents on the Tasmanian service would have been any differenthad the aircraft been seaplanes or amphibians.

Tasmania^ Communications

Mr BARNARD:

D asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Can he state the approximate date of the completion of the Bass Strait cable, and when it will be ready for service?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– It is hoped that the service which will be provided by the completion of the Tasmanian cable will be available for commercial traffic about March or April next year.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 November 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1935/19351101_reps_14_147_c1/>.