16th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. M. Nairn) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 796
– As Chairman, I present the third progress report of the Joint Committee on Sural Industries.
Ordered to be printed.
page 797
Motion (by Mr.Beasley) agreed to -
That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to enable a justice of the High Court to accept and hold a certain office.
page 797
Debate resumed from the 29th April (vide page 604) on motion by Mr.
That the following paper be printed: - “ Inter national Affairs - Ministerial statement, the 29th April, 1942”.
– I move -
That all the words after “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “, in order that the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces may be effectively welded into one fighting army available for offence as well as defence, this House is of opinion that all territorial limitations upon the power of the Commonwealth Government to employ the Australian . Military Forces should be removed “.
– Why, then, is the Opposition now interfering?
– I submit that this is not an interference but an attempt to help the Government. I wish to make the position quite clear to those who are capable of viewing the matter nationally. At present, the Defence Act, reinforced in this respect by a provision in the National Security Act, precludes the utilization of the Militia Forces beyond Commonwealth territories. Those territories are defined. The Opposition does not seek to lay it down that any forces shall be sent out of Australia, or to prescribe where they shall be sent, but merely seeks to remove a legal impediment which prevents their being used beyond Commonwealth territories. All of us know that, within recent months, and particularly within recent weeks, defence strategy in Australia has been developed on the basis of offensive action. It is universally recognized that the war cannot be won in Australia. All of us hope that the fight for the eventual destruction of our enemies will take place as far as possible from our own territories.If offence is to be the policy and the objective of our military advisers, surely we cannot have an army, one section of which would be available for defensive action in Australia and offensive action beyond it, and another section for defensive action only in Australia! How could there be a merging of the forces without a chaotic condition developing should the necessity arise for action to be taken outside Australia? The defensive frontier of Australia is not Darwin, Hobart or Fremantle, it may be anywhere in the adjacent islands. It may be in New
Zealand, New Caledonia, or the Netherlands East Indies. Can the Government logically argue that the members of the Militia may be sent from Tasmania to Cairns, but not from Tasmania to New Zealand - a much shorter distance - in order that Australia may be defended? Such a contention would have no sound basis. The point that I desire particularly to make is, that the Opposition does not require that the Militia shall be sent anywhere. It is not advocating that it shall be sent out of Australia, but it does put the view that the existing legal impediment must be removed in order that any plans which the Government may consider are necessary in order to meet a contingency may be expeditiously implemented, in accordance with the advice of those who are competent to form a sound judgment. That legal impediment can be removed only by this Parliament. Its removal in advance is just as necessary as planning in any other regard. It is an indispensable part of any adequate planning for the proper defence of Australia. In April, articles appeared in the Australian press which were obviously inspired by a Government spokesman - that mysterious overworked phantom of the night. Then the Adelaide Advertiser of the 7th April last stated -
Provisions ofthe Defence Act restricting compulsory military service to Australia and its territories will not stand in the way of the utmost freedom of disposal by the Supreme Allied Commander in the southwestern Pacific (General MacArthur) of Australian forces under his command. It has been known practically from the beginning of the Pacific war that the War Cabinet considers that no technicalities can limit the effective use of Australia’s protection of Australia’s armed forces. It can now be authoritatively stated that the Government will regard as territories of Australia for the purpose of the Defence Act any territories which are occupied by Australian forces for the purpose of resisting Japan, and which consequently de facto come under the Australian flag.
The newspaper went on to suggest that the Government would not accept kindly any move to have the Defence Act amended by Parliament in order to give formal expression to powers that it might need to exercise before the end of the war. We do not know what is the War Cabinet’s real mind on the matter. I give the most emphatic denial to the suggestion, if it be made, that any move by members of the Opposition to have the Defence Act amended is actuated purely by party political motives. I am fortified in that denial by the letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister, dated the 17th December last, which in temperate language conveyed to the right honorable gentleman the view that the Opposition then held, and afforded incontrovertible evidence of our desire to co-operate in this particular regard. That letter was in the following terms: -
At a meeting of the Opposition to-day a discussion centred around the dangerous position in which Australia finds itself, and which you have publicly stressed in many of your recent utterances. The Opposition took into full consideration the difficulties that confront you and your Government in the defence of Australia and gave very careful consideration to the disabilities that may arise in Australia’s defence from the fact that your Government is unable to send militia troops abroad or to the neighbouring islands or the Dominion of New Zealand owing to the provision in the National Security Act.
It appears to the Opposition that it is allimportant to create an Australian army for the defence of the Commonwealth which the Government can employ anywhere without any statutory restrictions whatsoever. Malaya and the Pacific Islands are as truly part of Australia’s defences as are our own coastal forts. In our opinion the Government must be able to employ as it may wish, and as the necessity demands, any Australian troops anywhere, be they voluntarily enlisted or raised under the Defence Act. As the law stands at present, it would bo impossible to reinforce the sister Dominion of New Zealand, or even to send troops to Timor, other than Australian Imperial Force personnel.
The Opposition stresses the importance of meeting the enemy outside the shores of Australia as well as within, and the distinction which must be drawn between Australian Imperial Force and militia at the present moment may seriously hamper the strategy of your Government and interfere, the Opposition feels, with the adequate defence of this country.
While having no desire to raise any controversial political question, but animated with a sincere wish to free the hands of your Government, the Opposition would be prepared to give unanimous support to a measure amending the National Security Act in such a manner as to enable the Governmentto employ any of our troops in any area vitally necessary for the defence of the Commonwealth. The Opposition unanimously desired me to convey the intimation to you in the friendliest possible spirit, and we are animated, 1 was asked to assure you, by the single desire to assist the Government andto free its hands of what may prove an embarrassment.
Swift action may bc necessary, and il appears to us Hutt, whilst Parliament, is still in session the opportunity should bo taken to amend the act so th.it thu Government will not find itself hampered by lack of power, but may by regulation as it thinks fit meet a situation which wc all hope will not arise.
No action has been taken in connexion with that matter. The Opposition is sincere; the Opposition- has been patient. lt is clear from that letter and from the general attitude of the Opposition, that we have no desire to play politics. The importance of this subject transcends all political considerations. Let it be clearly understood that the desire of the Opposition to have the Defence Act amended arises only from its anxiety that Australia should be placed in a proper posture for defence and offence against its enemies.
– Was any reply received to the letter?
– No. The press in Australia published the statement to which I have previously referred as coming from an authoritative Government source. On the 7th April, the Brisbane Courier-Mail published the text of a broadcast, which had been made during the 7 o’clock new3 broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was as follows : -
The Government will send Militia troops outside Australian territory if necessary. A high Government authority made this clear to-day. The Supreme Commander of the Anzac forces in the South-western Pacific (General MacArthur) can send troops wherever they ure most needed. The Australian Government had asked that all forces in the South-western Pacific should be under General MacArthur’s control. Obviously this request included the Militia as well as the Australian Imperial Force.
According to the press, no confirmation of this statement was forthcoming from the Prime Minister, or from any other Minister or from any Government authority, but the fact remains that the statement which was first broadcast, and later published in the press, has never been denied by the Prime Minister or by any one on his behalf. I know that speakers will get up on the other side and accuse the Opposition of advocating conscription. Let me point out that, at the present time, we have a very effective form of conscription in Australia. Under Statutory Rule No. 102 the entire man power of Australia may be conscripted, and rightly so. We have conscription for the raising of a militia force for use within Australia and its territories, but who knows where the defence outposts of Australia may be in’ the future? They may be in the Dutch East Indies, in New Zealand, or in New Caledonia. Will any one say that the Defence Act should not be amended so that our militia forces may be used for the effective defence of Australia in the manner indicated in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s broadcast? We are seeking to put our house in order so that we may be in a position to meet all possible contingencies. We ask that the fighting forces of Australia shall bc available for the defence of Australia, if necessary in areas beyond those which Government supporters describe as the continent of Australia. Will any one deny that we should be able, if necessary, to send Militia troops to the defence of New Zealand ? If our military advisers say that it is necessary to send forces to New Guinea or New Caledonia, should we not be in a position to send them ? We have merged the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces. The Australian Imperial Force was originally enlisted for offence and defence wherever they might be required. The Militia was raised for defensive action within a certain defined area. Now they have been merged into the one force, and if it be found necessary to send troops to the assistance of New Zealand how are we to cull the one section from the other so that only those who enlisted for overseas service may be sent? Surely honorable members opposite oan visualize the hopeless chaos which would result from any such attempt. If the proposed amendment were made the decision to send forces for service overseas would still he one for the Government. The Opposition is not trying to dictate to the Government in this matter, or to say where forces should bc sent. We merely say that legal power should be taken now to send the forces to any place which the military authorities may recommend, and the Government approve. Now is the time to make the necessary amendment. Wo should not wait until the actual need arises. I have heard it said that there is no legal obstacle to the employment of our military forces overseas, that Australian forces can be compelled to serve wherever the Australian flag is planted. It is suggested that wherever we plant our flag becomes, for the purposes of the Defence Act, Australian territory. That seems to be a dishonest way of getting round the difficulty. We have been urging this amendment since December last, and I give the lie direct to anyone who says that the Opposition is motivated by political considerations. Our only purpose is to arm the Government with such powers as may be necessary toenable it to meet whatever contingency may arise for defensive or offensive action within Australia or beyond it, and it is in that spirit that I submit the motion.
.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) has said that, in order to defend Australia, we must take the offensive, and that the proper place to defend Australia is somewhere at a good distance from Australia.
– I said that it may be.
– All right, it may be, and therefore it is necessary that the Militia, who have been compulsorily called to the colours, should be available for use in the areas so chosen. Let me point out to honorable members that, from the day the war commenced, the present Opposition has persistently argued that the true defence of Australia was to be conducted at points far distant from Australia, and that our fighting forces could be most effectively employed in our defence by being sent to distant theatres, thereby preventing an enemy from acquiring the requisite strength to approach our shores. That was their argument then, and that is their present opinion. Well, what are the facts? The facts are that, notwithstanding these legal impediments - which, by the way, were never discovered while the previous Government was in power - relatively vast Australian forces did actually fight in distant places, not in one theatre of war only, but in two - namely, the Middle East and Malaya.
– No thanks for that are due to the Labour party.
– I am discussing the argument that there exists a legal impediment which would prevent Australia from reinforcing New Zealand.
– I did not say that. I said that there was a legal impediment which would preclude the use of Australian Militia Forces in New Zealand.
– Why misrepresent the right honorable gentleman?
– I am not doing so.
– He claims that you are doing so, and he should know.
– The right honorable gentleman said that the reason for this motion was that there is a legal disability which prevents Australian forces from being used in other than Australian territory. In reply, I point out that Australian forces have been used effectivelyin several places outside Australian territory.
– Be fair to the right honorable gentleman.
– I understood that it was hoped that this matter would be discussed calmly.
– Then play fair with the Leader of the Opposition.
– I played fairer with the Leader of the Opposition than his own supporters have.
– That is another deliberate misstatement.
- Mr. Speaker, the honorable member for Wentworth has accused me of making a deliberate misstatement. That is offensive to me, and I ask that the remark be withdrawn.
– The honorable member for Wentworth must withdraw the remark.
– I withdraw it in deference to you, Mr. Speaker.
Government Members. - Withdraw the remark without qualification.
– I rise to order.I have withdrawn the remark, Mr. Speaker, at your direction, but the Prime Minister stated that he had treated the Leader of the Opposition fairer than have members of the Opposition. I submit that, as the Prime Minister is in no position to make such a declaration, it is a misstatement.
– There is no point of order.
– My conscience upholds me in my belief that during the whole course of this dreadful calamity chat overtook the world from the hour when Germany marched into Poland, I have discharged, whether as Leader of the Opposition or as Prime Minister, a first-class duty to Australia. I make that statement in spite of what individual opponents may say about me. I am prepared to accept the judgment of the country, at any. moment, upon my actions.
– No one accuses the Prime Minister; but the right honorable gentleman should not misstate what the Leader of the Opposition has said.
– Since the beginning of the war more than two years ago, Australia’s land forces, consisting of volunteers, have fought in distant theatres. For 40 years Australia has been a federation, with a national parliament. Its Defence Act was formulated on the basis of the defence requirements of the countryand the manner in which Australia would contribute to a common cause in association with allies, particularly its brethren of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Formulated in time of peace, the Defence Act has withstood the shock of war on two occasions during the last quarter of a century. The act provides that Australian forces which serve in distant theatres shall be recruited by the voluntary enlistment of the citizens.
– That was upheld by two referendums.
– That is true. It is clear that the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth must go beyond what are called Australian territories. Therefore, at no time in the history of this nation has the view been entertained that there should be compulsory service in the Navy. The same is also true of the Royal Australian Air Force. Because of its tremendous mobility, it is expected to operate beyond Australian territories, but every person who serves in the Royal Australian Air Force is a volunteer. The third arm of our fighting forces - the Army - lacks the mobility of the Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. It has been said that as every man has an obligation to defend his country, those who are compulsorily called to service shall be subject to the limitation which the law originally imposed and which has stood from the hour that the Defence Act was passed until the present day. No government has sought to repeal that provision. In what I am about to say, I hope that I shall make no statement that will be regarded as revealing matters that should not be disclosed; but I inform honorable members that land forces are available at the present time for service overseas as large as the forces which the previous Government ever despatched abroad. That is to say, these forces are not affected by the legal limitation which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to remove.
– Those forces include Americans.
– No, I speak of Australians.
– Who is the authority for that statement?
– I am.
– Is the right honorable gentleman a military adviser?
– No.
– Will the Prime Minister assure me that his military advisers have informed him that the force in Australia available for service overseas is sufficiently large? He dare not give that assurance.
– Although I am not a military adviser, I inform the honorable member for Deakin that the effect of the advice upon which I am acting, and the policy which I am endeavouring to carry out, has been not to send men abroad, but to bring troops to Australia.
– That does not answer my question. I defy the Prime Minister to answer it.
– The troopsthat are being brought here are American conscripts.
– That is not the case. On Wednesday, I directed attention to the power of the enemy, which has the initiative. In the absence of naval and aerial superiority in Australia, all talk of taking the offensive is meaningless.
Mr.archiecameron. - Then all the press statements by the Prime Minister about the offensive are false!
– What statements to the press ?
– The Commonwealth Government has talked, of nothing but offence.
– Of course it has!
– Taking the offensive with American troops.
– I repeat that in the absence of naval and aerial superiority, all talk about taking the offensive is meaningless. I shall also refer to the shipping situation. I do not propose to disclose the allocation of shipping in any particular theatre, .but until the united nations can improve the shipping resources available to them, the conduct of the war cannot be directed merely by wishful thinking. It must be founded upon the realities of the situation.
– What will happen then ?
– I do not propose to deal with any operational matter.
– The Prime Minister is not asked to do so.
– No, but I am asked to acknowledge the existence of a legal limitation which prevents Australia from providing a requisite number of men for service in distant theatres. I say, with regret, that we cannot contemplate that situation in the present, realities of the war. I have received no advice that would warrant consideration of such a policy, at the present time, as a practical contribution to the conduct of the war.
The second matter is that at the present time a force is available which is stronger than that which would be used for operations abroad. Is not this a war in which air superiority almost dictates the nature of military and naval operations? Without air support, naval strength is virtually impotent, whilst military operations, unsupported by an adequate air force, are greatly prejudiced and frustrated. Is not that the whole story of how the enemy has moved, to our great disadvantage? Our air strength must be increased. I do not hesitate to say, because it is no revelation to the country, that the doubling of our Air Force would be far more advantageous iu the prosecution pf this struggle than the addition to our land forces of two or three divisions. Ability to organize, equip aud despatch naval and air forces to meet the enemy is a far more valuable strategical conception than is any disposition or redisposition of the hind forces.
– The Prime Minister must take things as they are.
– I am doing so. Because we lack naval and air strength, we are obliged, instead of contemplating the calling-up of men for military service in distant theatres, to keep them at home for the defence of this country.
– What is the Government’s objection to having this power conferred upon it?
– Why did not the Menzies Government or the Fadden Government take that power? Why did the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), when invoking the National Security Act, repeat in that measure the specific limitation which the Defence Act imposed upon the despatch overseas of certain men?
– It was the only way, then, to induce many people to contribute to the war effort.
– I will not have any great controversy about this business. This country is at war. Notwithstanding all the men we have sent abroad, the manner in which our navy has fought in distant theatres, and the way in which our airmen have traversed vast distances, the fact is that this country has now reached the stage at which it has to use the maximum of its resources to resist enemies who may invade our soil.
– That is not denied.
– Of course it is not denied. The first and immediate task, surely, is the mobilization of everything we have to hold this country, for, if Australia be not held, all talk of sharing in offensives elsewhere is, as I said on Wednesday, absolutely meaningless. I tell the country that this motion is not a service to national unity. It is no service to present military requirements. It is not sought or asked for by anybody in the country except a few disappointed politicians who seek an issue upon which to rehabilitate themselves.
– If it were not for the fact that Great Britain is separated from the continent of Europe by a strip of water about 24 milos wide at its narrowest point, and for the brave hearts of the British people, who fought the battle for Britain, democracy by now might have vanished from the world. With Britain smashed, what would be the position of the democratic world ? The great United States of America would ‘be caught between the forces of the east and the west. Democracy is now threatened because the leaders of democratic countries failed, until nearly too late, to face realities. By his speech to-day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has shown himself to be another democratic leader who has not awakened to the realities of the situation. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) was directed entirely to one specific point, but in his reply the Prime Minister skated all round the subject, without coming to the real point. It was obvious from the outset that this war would take the new form of total war. That was admitted on all sides. Even before the war started, we had been told very clearly by the Nazi leaders that every man and woman and all materials would have to play their part. It was obvious to every body that wo should have to meet the Axis powers on a footing of total war if we were ever to defeat them. The expression “ total war “ has been used as freely by members of the Government as by members of the Opposition, but to talk about total war and not to enact it is mere lip service. If, like ourselves, Great Britain and the United States of America were to fight this war on a purely voluntary basis so far as man-power is concerned, we should not be so optimistic about the outcome as we now are. Times are dark indeed, but they .would be infinitely darker if the powers ranged against the axis countries adopted the voluntary principle in warfare.
It was apparent at the beginning of this war that Australia needed one army. Instead of that, owing mainly to the unrealistic attitude of the Labour party, we were given two armies, the voluntary Australian Imperial Force, and the conscripted Australian Military Forces. Many months have passed since it was impressed upon me that, by having two armies, Australia multiplied its dangers.
– When did the honorable member wake up to that?
– If the Minister refers to Hansard he will see that in 1940 I warned Parliament of the dangers inherent in the two-army system. Men in the Australian Military Forces were invited to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force, and they responded in great numbers, with the result that, whereas the training should have been continuous, in ‘both armies, it was constantly interrupted - in the Australian Military Forces by enlistments to the Australian Imperial Force and in the Australian Imperial Force by spasmodic instead of regular increases of recruits. In order to show the dislocation that was caused, I cite the Militia unit at Seymour which was left at one stage, after the men had enlisted, with a few officers, one sergeant and seven men. The existence of two armies, one a voluntary offensive unit, and the other a conscripted defensive unit affects morale. Esprit de corps and the highest possible morale can be gained only when you have one army trained in the psychology of offence. The fact of having in the background a second army that will fight only if the enemy actually invades our territory damages morale and is not calculated to foster amicable relations. In recent months the bitterness and rancour which existed between the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces has lessened, but it is still in existence, breeding a lack of confidence between troops. Proof that this is recognized by the Government is to be seen in the fact that the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) has recalled from abroad units of the Australian Imperial Force, because we need them here to stiffen the ranks of the Australian Military Forces. His military advisers no doubt have pointed out in no uncertain terms that, now that Australia is in danger, it would be disastrous not to merge the two armies into one, in order to increase morale and bring the forces as close to perfection as possible in order that this country might be defended, and in order that we might take the offensive at the earliest possible time. We have at present with us a great general who has been appointed to take supreme command over all forces in Australia. Undoubtedly there is some force in the argument that American troops have come here to save this country, but it is more true that Australia has achieved a position of great strategical importance in the development of the war effort of the Allied Nations. This country must be held, not merely because it is Australia, but because it it, as has been admitted by the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Army, an important base for offensive action. No one believes that when General MacArthur assumed supreme command he visualized sitting behind the seaboard of this country merely to save Australia from its enemies. His immediate object is to save Australia, but his ultimate objective is to develop a force in this country that will permit of offensive action overseas to bring about the ultimate defeat of our common enemies. The Axis powers know that General MacArthur will go after them whenever he can, and we all hope and pray that the day will soon arrive when that will be possible.
Acting under government instructions our military forces are being merged into one army ; distinctions are being abolished The Government has claimed responsibility for the invitation to bring to Australia General MacArthur to take supreme command over the forces. It is not difficult to visualize that the time will arrive when the danger to Australia will have been removed, when the necessary arms and equipment will have been so built up that General MacArthur and Sir Thomas Blarney will be able to decide that the time has arrived to go after the enemy. It is acknowledged that we cannot win the war in Australia. The Prime Minister said this morning that there were sufficient numbers of the Australian Imperial Force at present in Australia to undertake an offensive expedition. By interjection, I asked the Prime Minister whether his statement was supported by his military advisers, and I defy the right honorable gentleman to prove that his military advisers consider that the number of effective troops for overseas service from Australia is considered to be sufficient for that purpose. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for the Army can truthfully make that claim at present.
– How does the honorable member know that Ministers cannot truthfully make that claim?
-!: defy the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Army to advise the Parliament that his military advisers are satisfied that there are sufficient effective members of the Australian Imperial Force in. the country not only to guarantee the protection of the country but also, if necessary, to embark upon an offensive action overseas.
– The Prime Minister did not say that.
– There is no alternative to the use of Australian Military Forces unless Australia means to fight an offensive action overseas mainly with American conscripts. No Australian who is proud of Australia as a nation would desire an offensive action to be undertaken from our shores with other forces unless he was’ assured that we had marshalled our own forces .to the utmost
– The honorable member is casting a nasty reflection on the Australian Imperial Force.
– We must have at our disposal the greatest number of effective troops who can be put into the field. It is no use side-stepping this question, as was done by the Prime Minister to-day. Sooner or later a demand for offensive action must come if we ere to win the war - and I believe we are - and we mUSt have adequate forces prepared to meet the demand. If the broadcast speech by the Prime Minister to the people of Great Britain meant anything, undoubtedly we must clear the decks in Australia at once. When the moment for decision does arrive are we to be expected to meet in this House and take such action as would clearly indicate to the enemy that Australia considered it had reached a stage of efficiency which justified the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in setting forth on an offensive action ? The Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces are being built up together, with officers returned from theatres of war taking control of the Australian Military Forces at the direction of the Minister for the Army, under what I assume to be the considered Government policy. Appropriate action now to remove legal impediments, will not convey to the enemy the strategical decisions of our commanders. We would speak with greater power and out utterances would be immeasurably more important in councils overseas if appropriate action were taken at this stage. Great Britain, the United States of America and New Zealand already have conscription without territorial limitations; Canada is moving in the same direction, and Australian opinion would be considerably strengthened if our spokesmen were able to say, “ Australia is now on a total war footing. There is no obstacle in the way to what we should do toward winning the war.” Australia would be uplifted as a nation in the eyes of the world, and we could justly demand the right to make our voices heard in the councils of the world. The legal impediments that exist in our Defence Act are a cloak of dishonour on the shoulders of the nation. Our allies know as much about the limitations of our Defence Act as we do. They knew that the impediments existed when we appealed for help in such a way as to give the impression that we were squealing. Surely, it is strange that our allied nations could truthfully claim that while we seek their help we are not prepared to go the whole way ourselves, that when it comes to any action overseas we are only prepared to ask men to volunteer for that service. If we continue to intermingle the Australian Imperial Force with the Australian Military Forces at a critical period there will be dislocation throughout the whole Army. For the safety and honour of Australia we should remove existing legal impediments in the Defence Act. We must be able to inform our allies that when the time for offensive action arrives we shall be prepared to accompany them.
.- Opposition members have claimed great credit for the manner in which they have co-operated with the Government in the war effort, but to-day we have witnessed a fair example of what they consider to be co-operation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) has been driven unwillingly by a section of his followers to launch what is tantamount to a motion of censure, and to create embarrassment not only to the Government of Australia but also to our allies overseas’, in an effort to bolster the fast-fading political fortunes of their ex-leaders. The Leader of the Opposition laid stress on broadcast statements alleged to have been made by that mysterious individual whom nobody seems to be able to track down - “ a Government spokesman “. I propose to read an extract from a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph in relation to a rowdy Opposition caucus meeting held yesterday, to show what is really behind this move. The report is as follows : -
The Opposition’s decision to press for this is the first serious reverse for Mr. Fadden as Opposition leader, and a triumph for the Menzies group.
Fadden against it.
The proposal was moved by Mr. Menzies, who was supported by a strong section of Victorian members, and an almost solid vote from the South Australians.
Among his supporters were Messrs. McEwen (Victoria), Spender (New South Wales) and Senator Mc’Leay (South Australia).
Those gentlemen probably still think that there is a chance to form a new government. The report continues -
The Menzies group said it was ridiculous for’ the Government to talk of merging the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Militia Force when it could not send the Australian Militia Force outside Australian territory.
They also argued that American troops in Australia were mainly conscripts, and Australia could not expect America to send maximum aid if she was not prepared to send all her own troops to any theatre.
Mr. Fadden, the United Australia party leader (Mr. Hughes), Mr. Spooner (New South Wales) and Mr. Anthony (New South Wales), opposed the proposal.
This report, which indicates an intimate knowledge of happenings at the Opposition caucus meeting yesterday, concludes with the following remarks: -
Mr. Menzies’ success in the party room to-day is significant because of persistent reports that he intends challenging Mr. Hughes for the United Australia party leadership.
It is reported also that if he succeeds hf will later attempt to oust Mr. Fadden from the Opposition leadership.
It is argued that Mr. Menzies was certain of victory to-day because the majority of th>.” Opposition has always advocated conscription.
In a fight for the leadership he might not command such strong support.
It is obvious that this amendment has been moved not in the interests of Australia or of the Commonwealth Government, or of the war effort, but as a manoeuvre for political position. The purpose of the move is to enable Mr. Menzies first to decapitate the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) as leader of the United Australia party and then to become a Richmond in the field against Mr. Fadden for the leadership of the Opposition. As that is what is behind this move, it was not surprising that the Leader of the Opposition showed such a ‘ noticeable lack of enthusiasm in submitting the amendment. We have been told that the object of the Opposition is to remove a legal impediment. That impediment could have been removed at ‘any time during the two years of war for which the present Opposition held the reins of government, particularly as throughout that period it commanded a majority in both Houses of the Parliament. But no action to that end was taken. It is only since certain members of the Opposition have found themselves on the left of Mr. Speaker that they have felt this itch to remove the so-called legal impediment. Wo have been told that this move is not designed to introduce conscription for overseas service. Oh, no! Perish the thought! Honorable gentlemen opposite realize that “ conscription for overseas service “ would not be a popular cry in the electorates. They know, too, that the position of the Curtin Government has been strengthened greatly by its action in bringing the Australian Imperial Force Lack to Australia. The Opposition would not openly advocate conscription for overseas service at the moment, for that would not provide them with good political capital. But, in a hypocritical spirit, they have not hesitated to hold up the business of the country in order to promote the political ambitions of certain of their former leaders. The so-called legal impediment which they profess to desire to remove has existed for about, 40 years.
This amendment has been moved, I. repeat, not to assist the Government but to assist individual members of th-: Opposition. If the Government desired to take such action as is implied in th? amendment, it could do so without the assistance of thu Opposition. But this Government is pledged to give effect to the platform of the Labour party, one plank of which provides that appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure that no Australian citizen shall be conscripted for military service overseas. If the Labour party desires to remove that plank from ite platform - which is not the case - there is a means by which effective action can be taken.
Why did not the Opposition take action to attain its desired end when it was still in control of the affairs of the country? Obviously, honorable gentlemen opposite arc relying upon the old shibboleth that the defence of Australia should be conducted anywhere but in Australia. They are standing by the theory that they have held for years that Australia should be defended wherever there is, or may he, a war frontier. But that idea has been exploded. This war has proved to be too mobile for theories of that description. A situation has now arisen which has made it necessary for the Government to bring back to this country the many thousands of men that the previous Government sent away from it bo other theatres of war. The Prime Minister has informed us that without a provision such as ie sought in the amendment we have at present more volunteers available for overseas service than were raised and sent to war theatres overseas by the last Government. We must bear in mind that Australia is so seriously menaced to-day by the Japanese that we cannot afford to send our soldiers overseas. All the talk of the Opposition about conducting an offensive immediately must be regarded as sheer humbug while Australia is menaced in the north by greatly superior forces of Japanese. As we could not see any prospect of obtaining help from Great Britain to defend this country, we have relied upon support from die United States of America. Because American assistance has been forthcoming we have been able to gather substantial forces to help us to save the country if it should be invaded. But however fast we may be able to manufacture munitions and mobilize and equip our armies, we shall be hard pressed, with the forces at our command. Everything possible is being done by the Government to mobilize the resources of the country in order to keep the Japanese at bay, but whether we shall be able to do so will depend, in great measure, upon the combined efforts of Australia and America.
No more deadly blow could have been aimed at the Australian people than the moving of this amendment. I cannot conceive of a more effective fifth-column job being done outside this House than is being done inside it by the Opposition to-day.
– That is an outrageous statement.
-Whether it be outrageous or not I shall substantiate it. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) knows very well the degree to which Australia is dependent upon the United States of America for assistance in the immediate future, but, in my view nothing could be more calculated to embarrass this Government in its endeavours to secure further assistance from America, nothing could do more to strengthen the hands of the isolationists and fifth columnists in America, than the moving of this amendment in this Parliament. The Opposition is this morning providing ammunition for those people overseas who are working in the interests of the Axis and against those of the United States of America and Australia.Sections of the American press will certainly cite this debate as a reason for stating that the people of America should not continue to help Australia, because the Australian Government is not prepared to conscript Australians for overseas service. Such repercussions should not surprise us. There was no need whatever for honorable gentlemen opposite to raise this issue, for it can do nothing to help the war effort. In our present circumstances, it is humbug to talk about conducting an offensive from Australian territory in the near future. Our first business is to organize ourselves so that we may meet the menace that faces us in the north. We must do everything possible to prevent the Japanese from landing in. Australia. The carrying of this amendment could do nothing effective to achieve that end. No one can tell when, or where, the war will end. It may be that it will end with the Australian soldiers and their American colleagues still on Australian territory, but our present necessity is un questionably to concentrate our forces within Australian territory. It is for the reasons I have given that I consider the moving of thisamendment to be a deadly fifth-column job; the contention that the action has been taken to assist the Government carries no weight whatever with me. Without question, what has been done willembarrass the Government and hinder its efforts to protect the interests of the people and to help in the winning of the war.
– The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) stated in his concluding remarks that the amendment had been moved because of the desire of certain dissatisfied members of the Opposition to rehabilititate themselves.
Mr.Ward. - Hear, hear!
– If the Minister far Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) thinks that I am included in that number, he is welcome to his opinion; but I shall certainly support the amendment. I have never been a conscriptionist. I make that statement for the benefit of the few honorable members in this House whomay not have heard me discuss the subject. My most intimate friends here and elsewhere know that I have always opposed the view that we should have conscripted our men early in the period of this war and sent them overseas to fight. I have on other occasions given my reasons for that view. The conscription issue is not behind this move. The fact is that the men of this country have already been conscripted. The ground upon which a battle is fought influence the result very greatly, but it matters little to the soldiers engaged. Once I am compelled by lawto fight, the spot whereon I fight does not interest me at all. We have heard in the past about industrial conscription. Industrial conscription is now in force. But it. was introduced by thisGovernment, not by the previous Government. The Australian Military Forces in Australia are also a. conscript army, being composed of men called up, trained and compelled to serve anywhere in Australia. If that is not conscription. I should like those Ministers who have interjected to tell me what conscription is. I, of course, have prejudices, and acknowledge them, butI am not so blinded by them that I shall do what I consider is wrong in the interests of the Australian forces, especially the Australian Military Forces, by saying that they shall not be placed in precisely the same position as is occupied by the men alongside whom they are being trained and will be required to fight. I remind the House that the forces are mixed to-day. Men who enlisted and were trained in the Australian Imperial Force are now being attached to Militia units, and officers taken from the Australian Imperial Force have been transferred to the Australian Military Forces or the Militia, as it is commonly called ; yet the one section will be sent wherever needed, whilst the other will not. The word “ morale “ is freely used. I have heard it in this House, over the air. and from the pulpit. I am of the opinion that quite a lot of those who use it do not know its meaning. I hope that the Prime Minister does. I cannot imagine anything that would be so detrimental to the morale of any force as to be regarded as inferior. Certainly, the Australian Military Forces are to-day regarded as inferior by members of the Australian Imperial Force as well as by the people generally. I regret that tremendously. To the degree that my influence can’ be exerted, I have used it in order to prevent this conflict between the two forces; but, unfortunately, it exists. The one decisive way of removing it is to place all on the same basis. If for no other reason, I am bound to vote for the amendment because of the effect which the present position must have upon the young members of the militia force, many of whom were willing and anxious to fight outside Australia but were not allowed to do so.
I suggest with all respect that the Prime Minister has never been heard to greater disadvantage in this Parliament than he was to-day. He did not answer any of the points that had been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden).
– He did not get much opportunity to reply. .
– He had all the opportunity permitted by the Standing Orders, and was not nearly so greatly interrupted as was the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that he himself could complain of the treatment that he received. The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) cannot be excluded from the ranks of those who offend by interjecting. The Prime Minister said a lot about what he would term “ strategy “. That word also is loosely used. As a matter of fact, there is little scope for strategy in Australia today. What is perfectly obvious wall, of necessity, be done. We do not know at what point in Australia the enemy may land, but in his offensive war he is not handicapped, as is our high command, by not being allowed to use any of his forces wherever they are required. In reply to an interjection that I made, the Prime Minister said that there is a sufficient number of Australians in this country to take the offensive at any time. That is a completely absurd statement. I do not know precisely the number of Australian troops that we have at our disposal to use overseas, if necessary, but it is not greater than three divisions. Even if they were up to full strength, they would not be nearly sufficient to recover what has been lost and drive the attack right home to Japan; and if there should be fighting in Australia, obviously their ranks will be depleted. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) has definitely stated that no militiamen are to he permitted to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force. How, then, does he propose that the Australian Imperial Force shall be reinforced ?
– Members of the Australian Military Forces are daily being enrolled in an Australian Imperial Force reserve, and when the Government decides that it is necessary to send forces outside Australia they will be available for service at any point at which they may be required, as members of the Australian Imperial Force.
– The press, which often misrepresents Ministers as well as happenings in the party rooms, has definitely stated that the Minister said that no member of the Militia would be allowed to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force. Even though the Prime Minister holds the view that it is absurd to talk about an offensive at this time, is that any reason why we should not remove the existing impediment in the interests of not only the forces themselves but also our ability to assist our nearest neighbours, should that be found necessary at any time? I am not one of those foolish people who think that they can predict what the enemy is likely to do ; the best brains in the Army are merely guessing, but it will be acknowledged by any thinking man that it is not unlikely that Japan would send a force sufficient to occupy New Zealand at any time suitable to its purpose. If it should send a force of 100,000 or 150,000 to New Zealand, is it conceivable that we would allow that dominion to be occupied and overrun, and not make an attempt to render assistance?
– How would the troops be transported there?
– Is there anybody in this House with any knowledge of the matter who is prepared to say that we could not find enough ships to send three divisions to New Zealand? Such a contention would be utterly absurd.
– Where could they be obtained ?
– Along the coast of Australia there is three times the number that would be required. The existing legal impediment to the full utilization of our forces must be removed in our own interests. We could not hold up our heads if we did not apply to our own men a degree of compulsion equal to that applied to the forces from America, who are here in our country ready to help to defend it, and ready to take the war to the enemy’s territory. Surely we are willing to do our part! We should be shamed in the eyes of the world for ever. We should be ashamed of ourselves whenever we looked an American in the face. The overwhelming majority of the militiamen would be ashamed of themselves if they had to go into battle side by side with the Australian Imperial Force, and were, not on precisely the same footing of being obliged to_ fight wherever the High Command said that the fight should take place. If there were no other reason, that would be sufficient to warrant the action proposed by the Opposition. We should not wait until the time arrives to “ raise the flag “ outside of Australia. How can the flag be raised outside of Australia if we will not use our force out of Australia? The statement made to-day, coming as it did from the Leader of the Government, proves conclusively that he is in frightful difficulties in this matter.
– The honorable member does not like the truth.
– The Minister for Repatriation has been interjecting very freely to-day. I well remember a previous debate on this subject in this House. 1 was tremendously interested in it, because the honorable gentleman and another colleague of mine from Tasmania definitely opposed their party. The Minister then advocated conscription.
– The Government which the honorable member supported did not have the courage to go on with it.
– It did not, but what is being advocated to-day is an entirely different matter.
– The only government member who supported me was the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White).
– Does the Minister stand to-day where he then stood?
– I do; but the honorable member does not. ‘ He has shifted his ground because of the pressure applied to him at the meeting of his party yesterday.
– On the occasion when this matter was previously discussed, I occupied the position of Speaker. There has not been an occasion when I have been afraid to say where I stood. In the interests of the Australian Military Forces and for the honour of Australia, to enable us again to hold up our heads, look our friends from overseas in the face, and say that we will fight side by side with them under precisely the same conditions, and in order to show our preparedness to strike whenever and wherever the enemy can be attacked with advantage we should do what the amendment proposes at once.
– It was with mixed feelings that I heard this amendment moved - feelings partly of relief and partly of disappointment. My feeling of relief arose from the fact that,’ on the 6th April last, the statement was broadcast throughout Australia that this Government, by an evasion of the Defence Act, might conscript persons for overseas service. Statements to the same effect appeared in the daily newspapers on the following day and during the following week. The answer made by the Prime Minister to this amendment dispels, I think, any fear that the Government will resort to compulsion for overseas service by either an amendment or an evasion of the Defence Act. For that reason, I am glad that the amendment has been moved, whatever may be the fate of it. I am pleased that the Government is nailing its colours to the mast, and has declared that it will not depart from the traditional policy of the party and the movement that it represents. However, from one point of view, I regret that the amendment has been moved, because I regard it as tending to divide the people of Australia, and to put fear into the hearts of the parents of those men who are being called up for the defence of Australia.
– They do not want to be ashamed of their boys.
– No; but my view is that there is no moral obligation on Australians to fight for the defence of any territory other than Australian territory. That is my view and the view of the party with which I have been associated for a long time. That is also the view of the people of Australia.
– The honorable member is now talking about the “ conchies “.
– No, I am not. I do not recant my opinions so quickly as does the honorable member for Bendigo. It is not so long ago since he made a declaration in this House against conscription for overseas service, pointing out what might be the result if Australia were denuded of men by sending them to serve overseas.
– I have not changed my opinion.
– The first Defence Bill introduced in this House in 1901 contained a provision which, upon examination, showed that it was the desire of the Barton Government to be able to send Australians to serve, not only in any part of Australia and its territories, but also in any place on the face of the earth. Credit for exposing that design. - because it was wrapped up in words - is due to the late Mr. Justice Higgins, who was then a member of this Parliament. When the exposure was made, the whole House rose against the proposal, not the Labour party only, but. the rank and file of all parties. The bill reappeared in 1902 in an amended form, but even then it did not satisfy members of the House, and they were not content until a provision had been inserted to the effect that no member of the Military Forces, even of the Permanent Forces, could be required to serve outside of Australia and its territories without his consent. The only issue which divided them was whether the prohibition should extend to the territories of Australia. Some, including- Mr. Higgins, thought that men should not even be sent to the overseas territories of Australia without their consent, whilst others thought thai there should be power to do this. Section 49 of the Defence Act stood unaltered and unaffected until 1939. In that year the government of the day introduced a bill which, in my opinion, and in that of some others, extended the obligation of military service, because it specifically provided that Australians might be compelled to serve in the mandated territories administered by Australia. The position to-day is that no member of the Australian Military Forces, even if he be a professional soldier, can be required to serve outside Australia and the territories of Australia and the mandated territories administered by Australia without his consent, or unless he has specifically enlisted for that service. That position has not stood without challenge. There were two attempts to alter it. In 1916, the Government led by the right honorable member for North Sydney a..= he now is (Mr. Hughes) asked the people by referendum to say whether they were prepared to give the government the same power in relation to service overseas as it enjoyed in regard to service for the defence of Australia. The people were asked to authorize the Government to put. legislation through Parliament altering the Defence Act so that Australians could be compelled to serve in areas beyond the control of Australia. That referendum was taken, not because the consent of the people to the alteration of the act was necessary, but because a majority of honorable members in both Houses, and especially a majority in the Senate, were opposed to any such alteration. It was thought that a favorable expression of opinion from the people would overawe them. In spite of the fact that every organ of public opinion in Australia, except the Labour party, was in favour of the alteration, the people of Australia refused to approve. During ;he next election, the right honorable member for North Sydney had to give a specific pledge to the electors that the question would never be raised again. I lc gave that promise in 1917, and broke it at the end of the same year. He did take another referendum, and the people again rejected his proposal, this time by m larger majority. In this referendum, not only did New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia vote against conscription, but Victoria also voted against it. The Labour movement of ustralia passed through the fire of that struggle, and many of the men now prominent in its direction owe their position io the stand they then took. I refer particularly to the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin), the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Holloway) and the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Curtin). As young men, their opinion upon this subject was formed in the course of that st ruggle. I speak as one who is no longer a member of the political organization of Labour, but I believe that there is no possibility of the Labour party unitedly accepting conscription, or even of a majority accepting it. I honestly believe that this motion is now being pressed largely with the intention and hope of breaking up the Labour movement in A itf tralia and dividing the political Labour party.
Several honorable members have said that there is no difference in principle between compelling a man to serve for the defence of his own homeland, and compelling him to go overseas to fight. I” believe that there is a great difference. Though I dislike military compulsion of any kind, my objection to compulsory service for home defence is quite different from my objection to compulsory service for overseas. I object to compulsory service for home defence, because I cannot conceive of any adequate protection being afforded by the law to that small, honest minority which the honorable member for Bendigo despises so much, the conscientious objectors. There are not many of them. They have not many votes, and some never vote at all, but they honestly believe that it is wrong to bear arms in any circumstances, that it is wrong to resist evil by means of evil. The law of Australia does not protect them. There is. however, a vast difference in principle between compelling a man to serve in defence of his own homeland and compelling him to serve overseas. When a man is fighting in defence of his homeland he is fighting against an enemy who has come there as an unmistakable aggressor. Every natural instinct compels him to defend, not only his beloved soil, but also his wife, his children and his parents. Natural instinct, apart from law, would call .upon men to rise in defence of their homeland. The law .of nations recognizes this, because it is provided that if an army invades another country, the whole people of the country are entitled to take un arms to repel the invader. It is recognized that although the people may rise without military training, and fight without military organization, they will, if they act openly, be regarded as combatants, and be entitled to be treated as such. There is no real difference between the levee en masse - the organized rising of the invaded people - and the citizen army - the same people organized. Compulsion to serve for the defence of one’s homeland is vastly different from compulsion to serve in another man’s country. Once a man takes the oath of enlistment, he is bound to obey orders, and he may be given orders which violate this natural instinct. Men so enlisted may be required to carry war to other countries against whose people they have no quarrel whatever. They may be required to put down insurrection among the Burmese, the peoples of India or of Indonesia who think, perhaps, that this is a favorable opportunity to rise for the liberation of their country. Australians can have no conceivable quarrel with coloured peoples who wish to win their freedom from the white races, and there should be no risk of Australians being employed against them. When a man is called upon to defend his own soil, there can be no doubt that the person assailing that soil is his enemy, and the enemy of the institutions he holds dear, but when he goes overseas to fight, he may find himself opposed to those with whom he has no quarrel. The essential difference is that in the one case compulsion merely enforces a moral obligation, and is instrumental in providing an effective organization; in the other, compulsion goes against a man’s natural instincts.
A good deal has been said of the fact that American conscripts are serving in Australia. The fact that they are here constitutes a breach of the promise given by the Government of the United States to its own people. The provision for the selected draft would never have been accepted by the people of the United States of America if President Franklin Roosevelt had not given a solemn promise that conscripted men would never be sent to serve overseas. The selected draft provides for service in the United States of America, including the territory of the Philippines, but not for service beyond those areas. Speaking in October, 1940, President Roosevelt said : -
Your boys are not going to be sent to any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that by its very existence it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores.
In December of the same year he invited his hearers to nail down as deliberate lies any talk of sending armies to Europe. It is not my wish that Americans should he compelled to serve in Australia. After the alteration of the American act, I read statements in newspapers published in the United States that there was as yet no question of compelling conscripts to serve overseas, and that forces required for service abroad would comprise volunteers recruited from among the selected draftees. Be that as it may, the fact that the United States of America, Great Britain and New Zealand have imposed conscription upon their people for oversea service, whilst Canada may follow suit, does not influence me. Those countries introduced conscription during the las; war. In New Zealand, persons who were conscientious objectors in 1914-18 are now vigorously enforcing the conscription of the young manhood of that dominion. Australia rejected conscription in 1916 and 1917, and I believe that the opinion of the country is still opposed to it. The greatest difficulty will be experienced in securing men for military service if they understand that there is a danger of their being compelled to fight in distant theatres. If the Government allows them to believe that, after having been recruited specifically for home defence, they may later be despatched overseas against their will, that belief will destroy their morale. Any one who wished to demoralize and divide the Australian people could achieve his purpose by no device so effective as the means to which the Opposition has resorted. However, the amendment will now provide Parliament with an opportunity to decide the matter. It will not be necessary to resort to an evasion of the Defence Act.
The position in Canada is that during the last war, the French Canadians as a body were opposed to conscription. A national government, consisting of Conservatives and Liberals from Provinces other than Quebec, was formed, and it succeeded in imposing conscription upon the people. The present Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, was defeated because he opposed it. No intelligent person believes that the recent referendum in Canada makes certain the introduction of conscription. The Liberal party, which depends upon the support of Quebec, would hardly dare to introduce it, because 72 per cent, of the electors in that Province voted against the proposal. Indeed, the purpose of the referendum was only to secure the release of the Government from its election promise not to impose conscription.
At the federal elections in 1940, most explicit pledges were given by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) and other members, including the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), that the United Australia party- United Country party Government would not introduce conscription. In fact, the right honorable member for Kooyong was so anxious to make his position clear that in 1939 he inserted in the national security legislation a clause designed to prevent the introduction by regulation of conscription for service overseas. When, in 1940. the right honorable member for Kooyong again amended the National Security Act, he inserted a provision to the effect that no regulation made under the National Security Act shall enable the Government to impose an obligation of any kind of service overseas. That provision recognized the instinctive feeling of the Australian people.
The conception of liberty is embodied in certain principles. Edmund Burke said that to British peoples liberty is not an abstract generalization but crystallines itself about some definite immunity or freedom. For the English people, the most important immunity was that of freedom from taxation without representation. To us here it is the freedom from compulsory overseas’ service. The greatest blow which the Labour movement of Australia struck for liberty defeated the conscription referendums of 1916 and 1917. Ever since, the Labour movement has been alert to preserve and encourage a widespread feeling against conscription for service overseas. As the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) stated, the platform of the Labour party contains a provision that an anti-conscription plank- should be included in the Commonwealth Constitution. Once it was placed there, it could be amended not by Parliament, but only by the people. Whatever happens in Australia, it will never be found that a government led by the right honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) and containing such members as the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde), the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Makin), and the Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) will be responsible for amending the Defence Act for the purpose of sending men overseas against their will. If that amendment is ever carried, the government responsible will be composed of members of the United Australia party and the United Country party. Perhaps a national government might force the amendment upon the country, but such an action would not be taken with the approval and consent of the Labour movement. Is the House prepared, after hearing the weak pleas of honorable members opposite, to adopt a policy which will be opposed at every stage by the Australian Labour movement ?
The plea has been made that units of the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces are so intermingled that they cannot be disentangled and that in the circumstances, the Government must send all or none overseas. That, position was foreseen long ago, because the Defence Act provides that no member even of the Permanent Forces shall be sent abroad without his consent. If the Government desires to raise forces for service in distant theatres of war, the men can be recruited. That is not beyond the capacity of the country. Some honorable members opposite declare that it is an insult to say to the Australian Military Forces that they cannot be compelled to serve abroad. That is absurd. The insult is offered when a man is told that he will be forced to serve. If a man is prepared to fight overseas, uo obstacle is placed in his way. I hope that the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition will meet the fate that it deserves.
The honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) supported the motion unreservedly. Given his way, the honorable member would have despatched every fit man to distant theatres of war.
– That statement does not correctly represent the views of the honorable member for Deakin.
– From the beginning of the war he has advocated overseas conscription.
– That does not involve the despatch to distant theatres of every fit man.
– There is no misrepresentation of the honorable member’s opinion. I feel no resentment against men who, having served in the last war, believe in conscription to-day; but I object strongly when men who, being of military age in the last war and, refusing to serve, now loudly urge the conscription of young Australians for service overseas, to leave unprotected their own homeland and to fight in foreign lands people against whom they feel no instinct of resentment.
.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) has raised, in a very temperate and reasonable manner, a matter that should properly engage the attention of the National Parliament. Naturally, opinion is sharply divided regarding the merits of his contention.
– There are times when it is not wise to discuss certain matters.
– Some issues can be decided according to a time-table, but other matters are of such overwhelming importance that they should be considered without delay.
– Such action can be disastrous sometimes.
– The Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) is entitled to his view. There is plenty of scope for differences of opinion upon this subject, but it is a legitimate matter for discussion. I deeply regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin). should allege that party political considerations compelled the Leader of the Opposition to raise the matter.
– It was the truth.
– I deny emphatically the allegation of the Prime Minister that the discussion was promoted by a few disappointed politicians who sought to rehabilitate themselves. In this Parliament, no mind is more resourceful in debate than the mind of the Prime Minister, and the fact that he was obliged to descend to such an allegation seriously reflects upon the case which he was called upon to justify.
– There is no harm in telling the truth.
– I agree; but there is great harm in damaging the cause of democracy. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is one of the few remaining legislatures founded upon democratic principles. To allege in this institution that such an important issue was raised because of base motives is to damage the democratic cause. In my opinion, the utterance of the Prime Minister was most regrettable. This subject should be discussed in the light of the peril that now confronts Australia.
– The details cannot be made public.
– The broad principle canbe told. Australia is confronted with greater peril than any other nation, with the exception of New Zealand.
– Yet the honorable member seeks to divide us.
– That interjection is unworthy of the Minister. I think that upon reflection, he will withdraw it.
– Nothing will divide the people more than this issue.
– The Minister’s statement that I wish to divide the nation is not true.
Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.
– The importance of the issue raised entitles this debate to be lifted above the level of allegations and counter allegations of party motives, and to be confined to the merits, as speakers see them, of the positive and important suggestion embodied in the amendment. The facts confronting Australia to-day form the basis upon which the issue should be discussed. I repeat that this dominion and the Dominion of New Zealand are in graver jeopardy than, any other belligerent nation. When I say that, I speak in the widest terms, because history provides many instances of nations, particularly in Europe which have gone to war and been defeated and yet have maintained their national existence, but one could not imagine that the terms of any peace compulsorily imposed upon Australia and New Zealand would contain any less a condition than a termination of the right and privilege, which both countries have hitherto exercised, of controlling the character and volume of immigration. Both countries are sparsely occupied and are near to other Pacific countries occupied by teeming millions. If we were to lose, even for a decade, the right to control immigration, the British character of the population of the two dominions would pass for ever. Australia would cease to be a British nation. That is why I say that Australia and New Zealand are confronted with grimmer possibilities in defeat than any other nation. It behoves us, therefore, to marshal every military resource of which we are capable for the achievement of victory. Happily, we are not called upon to fight alone. We fight in combination with very powerful allies, our British kinsmen, the Englishspeaking people of the United States of America, and, in this theatre, the Dutch, and, in other theatres, with other allies. Those who are fighting with us in this theatre came here, not specifically for the purpose of ensuring the security of Australia, but to concentrate their forces in order, we hope, to fight outside Australia so that the security of, not only Australia, but also every other allied country, might be procured by the defeat of our enemies. It is impossible to contemplate the securing of Australia merely by preparing to repel invaders from our shores. Even if we were successful temporarily in keeping the enemy from Australia, the threat to our national security would continue while the enemy remained undefeated. So, our allies come here, solicited and unsolicited, voluntarily and conscripted, for the purpose of achieving a powerful allied concentration in order that the enemy may be defeated. We welcome them, because we are glad to have their help, but it would be neither the heart nor will of the Australian people, by placing limitations upon our co-operation in the great objective, to play any less a part in the defeat of the enemy than that which our allies have set for themselves. Does any one think that the Japanese Empire can be defeated merely by preventing the Japanese from landing in Australia? Of course they could not be defeated by that means alone. Security can be achieved only by the defeat of the Japanese, which can be obtained only by fighting them wherever they be, on these shores, if they come here, or overseas, if they do not. That is the objective of the Americans and the Dutch, and I am sure that it is what the Australians intend to do, and to achieve that objective we must marshal all our military resources. The Prime Minister has intimated that the Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force, but only certain units of the Australian army, are available for that purpose. That does not indicate a complete marshalling of Australia’s military strength. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition does not give a direction to the Government; it intimates that it is the will of this Parliament that the Government should place itself in possession of the authority which would enable Australians to go forward with our allies to the ultimate defeat of our enemies. Surely an issue so important as that must be accepted as being lifted above party political alignments. It is unworthy to suggest that differences of opinion which exist indicate an endeavour to obtain personal advancement.
We have men of the Australian Military Forces stationed on the mainland of New Guinea where they are subjected daily to enemy attacks. On that mainland there are Japanese forces which, we believe, are concentrating preparatory to an attack on this country. There is an artificial boundary which divides the mainland of New Guinea into three sections - the Australian Mandated Territory, Papua, and Dutch New Guinea. The Australian Military Forces stationed there are legally debarred from passing the boundary into Dutch New Guinea - an intolerable situation. No Australian will claim that our militia should not be guarding our outposts. Yet, there was a time when members of the Commonwealth Parliament resisted vehemently the proposal that it should be made legally possible to send Militia forces to New Guinea. They do not continue their resistance to-day. In other words, the circumstances have shown that the precaution then taken to give to the Australian Government legal authority to garrison New Guinea was right and proper. Certain elements, not only in political life, but also in the outside community, have to bc educated to the military necessities. The purpose of this debate is to continue that education of those who need it to the point of understanding why it is necessary for further legal limitations on the disposition of our forces to be removed. If it be right that the Militia should be on the mainland of New Guinea, could it be wrong for them to be stationed, on the adjoining islands of Timor, Amboina, New Caledonia, and the Solomons.
– New Caledonia is a long way from New Guinea.
– But it is nearer to Queensland than New Guinea is to New South Wales, and it could be a very effective basis base for the enemy to use against this country.
– What is the difference between the distances from the United States of America to Australia and from New Caledonia to Queensland ?
– The honorable member’s question conveys the point. It is nothing new, if I may say this without provoking an attack, for the Labour party to lag behind Australian public opinion on defence matters.
– I want to make my point, if possible without being provocative, but in doing so, I am obliged to say, what I have just said, and in support of that I cite the fact that the Labour party opposed compulsory military training before this war.
– Has the honorable member read the policy speech delivered by Mr. Curtin at the 1937 general election?
– I have not, but I have heard his speeches in this House and they are what count. If compulsory military training had been introduced in this country before the war, not only would there have been perhaps 250,000 trained men at the outbreak of war, but also, and more important, there would have been the equipment for them. The refusal of the Labour party to accept the doctrine of compulsory military training in days of peace is the basic explanation of the shortage of equipment at the outbreak of war. The policy which was objected to by Labour in days of peace is now accepted. Immediately after the outbreak of war opposition was raised in this House by the present Prime Minister and the Labour party to the despatch of an expeditionary force from Australia, but supporters of the Government now agree that that was a wrong policy to adopt. Because the Labour party lags behind in this matter, it is not to be expected that the people will realize the error of their ways, unless the facta are brought before them lucidly. The purpose of the debate is to continue the education, in the interests of the security and the honour of Australia. It is an uncomfortable feeling to realize that whilst we are prepared to accept the assistance of conscripted Americans, Dutch and British personnel, and have asked for their assistance in the defence of the country, we are not prepared to organize the military manhood of the country on a basis that will enable our allies to be accompanied beyond the shores of Australia, shoulder to shoulder, in the final effort to overthrow our enemies. We have sought aeroplanes and equipment from overseas, and the aeroplanes that -we have received were partly made by women industrially conscripted in Great Britain. Yet, while asking for and accepting this help, we still maintain a legal condition which renders it impossible for the greater part of the Australian Army to fight outside our own territory. It is a reflection on the honour of Australia, as well as a contribution to the danger of this country, and I ask honorable members to reflect on these subjects. I regret the temporary absence from the chamber of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles). He forwarded to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), who at the time was Prime Minister, a letter in which he set out 21 points clearly and concisely, as expressing his considered views on what should be done to enable Australia to play its part in the allied cause. The point promoted to first place was -
To prosecute the war till victory is won, supplying men and materials wheresoever the Government considers essential.
That is the essence of the subject now before the chamber. The contention that it would be militarily practicable to disintegrate the Australian Army by selectively withdrawing certain personnel - the members of the Australian Imperial Force at present being merged in the Australian Military Force - from it and then despatching that selected body of troops on an overseas expedition is a figment of the imagination. One of the main lessons to be learnt from this war is that it is essential that a military expeditionary force shall be adequately trained before it is called on to fight. The Government to-day is doing something with which, if carried a step further, I am in agreement. It is combining two Australian armies raised on different bases. Our country is in the greatest peril, yet Australia is the one belligerent country that perpetrates the anomaly of maintaining two armies, one to serve in any theatre of war, and the other to serve within confined territorial limits.
– Has the honorable member forgotten South Africa and Canada?
– Canada has already taken a step comparable with what is proposed to-day.
– South Africa, has not taken that step.
– South Africa does not maintain two separate armies.
– That is mainly because of racial differences.
– Although we are merging the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Force into one Australian army, it will not be possible at a given time to abstract from that composite formation the men who have volunteered to serve abroad, recompose them into a separate army, and immediately despatch them abroad for active service. Any man with a knowledge of military affairs will admit that that is not militarily practicable. It has ‘been suggested by the “ Government spokesman “, to whom I shall snot refer further at the moment, that the public need not unduly worry because when the occasion does arise the Government will take the necessary steps to see that legal disabilities in the Defence Act are corrected. Even if we accept that as the intention of the Government - although the Prime Minister has partially denied it - it will not be possible, because the planning of the sphere of activities of an expeditionary force is a military project which would require long consideration. It is imperative to know that certain forces are available, to withdraw shipping from our allies in other theatres of war to transport such a force, and to specialize the training that is essential in a military enterprise such as the British Empire has not engaged in since Gallipoli. That special training is necessary if an expeditionary force is to attempt a landing on the shores of a hostile country, and adequate “landing craft” will have to be provided. If these preparations were being made and the equipment was being prepared, the fact would soon become known. If at the last moment the Government were to summon the Parliament and ask for legal authority to despatch an expeditionary force abroad, it would be a direct intimation to th« enemy that we were about to launch an offensive against him. Australian manhood “which is to be utilized in an army of that description should be integrated in one armed force at a time as remote as possible from when the action is to be taken. The Government should be given authority to act secretly and with celerity when the occasion arises.
It was with pleasure that I heard « speech by the honorable member for West Sydney recently when he referred to the splendid bombing operations recently undertaken by our American allies in th<Philippines. He said that Australia provided a splendid springboard for an attack against our enemies, and I think the Prime Minister has made a statement which indicates that he holds a similar view. It indicates that the Government does desire to use Australia as a springboard for attack, that it has a desire to do an honorable thing by its allies, and that, having accepted their assistance, is prepared to go further and send Australian troops into attack shoulder to shoulder with them.
– Is the honorable member suggesting that Australia has not done the honorable thing in the past?
– No, and I hope that honorable members are not under any misapprehension about it. As we have accepted assistance from our allies in the defence of Australia, it becomes obligatory upon us so to arrange our force that they can be used in any military activities that are considered essential for the successful prosecution of the war.
– I listened with interest to the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) and found that he had completely reversed the opinions he held on this subject in the days when he was a supporter of an anti-Labour government. He then sought to make it clear that he was entirely opposed to any military force leaving Australia.
– No, the Minister cannot quote me as having said that.
– The honorable member, at that time a supporter of an anti-Labour government, said during the budget debate on the 14th September, 1 039 -
I consider that the greatest obligation of citizenship of any roan is the obligation to bc trained, prepared and ready to fight to defend his land within its own borders.
To emphasize that attitude, to which no one took exception at the time, the honorable member added -
In case there should be any misapprehension of my attitude, I may say that in existing circumstances I do not regard it as safe to permit any man to leave this country to fight overseas.
In view of those statements, 1 am- obliged to say that, in my opinion, the honorable gentleman’s change of outlook is due to a desir.e to cause political mischief. I regret the necessity ‘ to strike such a note, hut I feel it incumbent upon me to point nut that political mischief is the only thing that can result from the moving of this amendment. Without question, the honorable member for Indi has changed his attitude.
– A lot of us on each side of the House have changed our attitude.
– The opposition of the Labour party to the sending of troops abroad for service, unless the troops volunteer, has not ‘been changed. The Leader of the Opposition has moved his amendment in the following terms: -
That a.ll words after “That” be left 0111 with a view to insert in lien thereof the following words - “, in order that the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces may be effectively welded into one fighting army available for offence a.s well as defence, this House is of opinion that all territorial limitations upon the power of the Commonwealth Government to employ the Australian Military Forces should bc removed “.
The honorable member for Indi said that lie wished to deal with the subject calmly, but, in fact, he delivered a most impassioned speech, which I consider can do nothing but harm. The honorable gentleman did not do justice even to him self for, having changed his views, hb gave us no substantial reasons to justify the change.
– Military circumstance* have changed.
– That is very true, and the change has made it more important than ever that our troops shall remain in this country. Not by any stretch of the imagination can the change in the military situation be advanced asa justification for the changed attitude of the honorable gentleman. For this reason, I consider that the stand he is now taking is dictated by political’ considerations.
A leading article which appeared in the Canberra Times this morning on this subject contained the following paragraph : -
The promised debate will serve to acerbatefeelings on an issue which will solve itself when the time conies for action. Meanwhile n donate cm the issue at the present time cannot fail to create doubts and misunderstandings in Allied countries to whom we have plodded ourselves in the fight and to whom we look for assistance. We in Australia know that our pledge will be kept, but nothing could be more mischievously calculated than a move which would needlessly disturb public opinion in other countries where perhaps a higher sense of responsibility exists even amongst the politically frustrated and rejected.
Undoubtedly this step by the Opposition will adversely affect public opinion overseas in respect of Australia, and, for that, the politically frustrated and rejected honorable gentlemen opposite ‘ will be responsible. Undoubtedly, also, the action of the Opposition in raising this disputatious issue which, historically, has created more dissension in this country in years past than any other issue, has been so ill-advised and destructive of national unanimity that even sections of the nonLabour press have condemned it. The (Canberra Times, which has never been a Labour newspaper, has correctly designated this amendment as politically mischievous. Public opinion will support that view.
– The people do not take
Teat notice of the newspapers in these da vs.
– They take notice nf certain responsible journals, hut they are not, likely to take notice of a general in military service who is helping to create political mischief instead of harmony.
– The Minister has never been a general, so he does not know mud about the position.
– It is true that I have never been a general nuisance to my party or to the public. There can be small wonder that this amendment is being regarded aa mischievous, because inevitably it must cause strife. Its jarring effect will undoubtedly cause disputation and heated controversy at a time when all our efforts should be concentrated on the winning of the war. An amendment of the Defence Act such as that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition could not add one iota to Australia’s war effort, but it undoubtedly will add to the unfortunate influences which are making for disintegration at a time when cohesion is desirable because our national existence is in peril. The honorable member for Indi held the portfolio of Minister for Air in the previous administration, and he must know as well as I do - I have followed him as Minister for Air - that members of the Royal Australian Air Force are prepared to go anywhere on active service. That also is true of the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Imperial Force. Many mon in the Australian Military Forces are willing to serve abroad, but they realize clearly that their best service in these days can be rendered in this country. In fact, it is far more necessary that they should serve here now than that they should be sent to some other theatre of war. If the need arises to send them abroad they will willingly undertake that service. In these circumstances I must express my regret that honorable gentlemen opposite should have selected this particular time to introduce this contentious subject. Their action can do nothing to promote internal harmony or increase goodwill to Australia abroad. The Leader of the Opposition, cannot feel proud of the support that he has received for his amendment. It has been almost pathetic to hear the declarations of some honorable gentlemen opposite that this move to amend the Defence Act has not been introduced in order to strengthen the case for conscription for overseas military service. The Prime Minister has put the attitude of the Labour party clearly, and I do not think that there is anything further that I can say usefully on the subject. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) and the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) have also dealt effectively with such criticism as has been offered of our attitude. I conclude by asserting that honorable gentlemen on this side of the chamber are just as loyal and patriotic to Australia and desirous of playing their part in the war effort as are honorable gentlemen opposite.* We have no desire to introduce any issue which will have a damaging effect on public morale. We believe that this move has been made for purely political purposes.
.- The matter now before the House is not. one for allegation and counter-allegation concerning the loyalty and patriotism of honorable members. The problem before us requires careful and considered judgment and should be regarded as of first-class importance. I have been disappointed in the two speeches delivered by Ministers. Each honorable gentleman has attempted merely to score some minor debating points. I am not concerned about what might have appeared in the pages of Hansard years ago. If I am told that I failed to meet the position when my Government was in office I admit quite frankly that I must accept my share of the responsibility. It is true that as Prime Minister I did not introduce a measure to give effect to this proposal. But the House itself moist also accept responsibility. Public opinion has taken a long time to develop in Australia, and the general public, too, must carry its share of responsibility. But what will it boot us if, because action was not taken in the past, we merely examine what Jones, Brown or Robinson may have said without taking action in the present? What we have to deal with now is the problem of 1942. What we do with this problem in 1942 may have a great deal to do with what will happen to us in 1943. The essence of the amendment, in the moving of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) made a forceful and reasoned speech, is in the words, “may be effectively welded into one fighting army “. I do not desire to discuss the question on theoretical grounds, because war is a grim, practical business and cannot be conducted on a theoretical basis. I am not concerned whether there is a political tradition in Australia in opposition to conscription. I am concerned about the present circumstances in Australia. I ask myself: Can our circumstances be improved by adopting the suggestion contained in the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition? Putting that question to myself, I have not the slightest doubt that the answer should be in the affirmative. Let as look at the subject: It is said that, to-day, when the enemy is almost upon our shores, is not the time when we should be discussing the sending of our men outaide Australia. Maybe that is right in one sense, but in another sense it is quite wrong because it is based upon the fallacy that men may be sent outside Australia on- a sudden inspiration. How did the Japanese come down upon Malaya with such diabolical swiftness and in such vast numbers? They did it because, for months, and for all we know, for years, they had been practising combined operations in the use of aircraft, naval craft, and armed forces. Doubtless the Germans also engaged in such practice operations before they actually employed them in war. The capacity to perform such operations does not spring full-fledged from nowhere. It is the result of long planning and careful organization. What is our position in Australia?’ It is true that at this moment we have back with us large numbers of the Australian Imperial Force. It is also true that we have here large armies belonging either to new formations of the Australian- Imperial Force, or to reinforcements of it, or to the Australian Military Forces, commonly known as the Militia. I ask the Minister for the Army to consider these questions: Is he keeping these various arms of the fighting services separate? Is he proposing to aggregate them in one force? Does he intend to placard one section of these forces, “ Not to go abroad “, and another section of them “ To go abroad “ ? The whole essence of the army reorganisation plans about which we have read in the newspapers recently is that we shall have one force. We have a supreme Allied Commander, General Douglas MacArthur, and he has under him the
Commander in Chief of the Australian Forces, General Sir Thomas Blarney, who, in turn, has under him staff commanders and commanders of corps and divisions. Is it intended that any corps shall contain only militiamen? Of course not The corps will consist partly of militiamen and partly of members of the Australian Imperial Force. These two forces will be blended into one organization which, at its apex, will have one supreme commander. In the last resort thesupreme commander will be related to oneallied strategy. We may say, in effect, that the total force at our disposal in Australia will consist of the Australian Imperial Force, the Australian Military Forces, and the American Forces which,, together, will form one army under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. That seems to me to be a state of affairs which does not call for a lot of tediousantiquarian research on the subject of conscription. It requires the application of horse sense in the determination of what we ought to do in the face of such circumstances.
The next step is this : That being our organization what is it designed to do?’ Is it designed simply to defend Australia from actual invasion? If that be the whole purpose of it, I take leave to remind this House and the people of Australia that we could escape invasion and still lose this war. It would be a miserable, narrow conception of this war were we to say that the only function of this great army, including the Americans, is to prevent the enemy from actually setting foot upon Australian territory or conquering it. Why, sir, it is clear to every body that Australia’s mime significance in this war arises from the fact that this country is visualized by so many people as a base from which ultimately blows may be delivered against the enemy where the enemy lives. Consequently, this is a force that is provided and organized not only for defence, but also for an offensive. Who am I, who is any one in this House, to say when an offensive shall come? Sitting in our chairs, we may say that it looks as though many long months must elapse before we can act on the offensive. One thing that has happened in this war is that the prophets have been, falsified every time. I cannot remember a solitary time-table worked out in this war that has not been proved utterly absurd in the final event.
With that general picture of the position, I merely want to indicate very shortly why I support the amendment. Perhaps the reason is implicit in what I have already said. The first point that I want to make in elaboration of what I have been saying is - and it is a commonplace of this war - the utter fluidity, the utter mobility of the events that have taken place in it. At one time it might have been said that to take an army to a hostile country, in rugged territory, through jungles, for a distance of 500 miles, was an operation that might be expected to occupy months. It has been proved in this war that it might occupy hardly more than a few days. It might have been said, as recently as the beginning of December of last year, that it was impossible for Japanese bombers to raid Pearl Harbour; yet they did it! If there is one thing that we ought to have learned, it is that fluidity is of the essence of this war. Paney the absurdity of having this great land army built up in Australia organized on a completely inter-mixed basis, and at the same time preserving a state of affairs which, until it be altered, will make immobile a portion of that army, will make it necessary to break up that army in order to achieve mobility and to send it to another place! It is time that we re-organized our ideas on the subject of armies. If this war has taught us anything, it should have taught us that. What would we say about a ship of war, some of the crew of which, were bound, not to leave Australian waters except of their own free will, and the rest of the crew of which had enlisted for service in any part of the world ? Every body, of course, would laugh at such a spectacle; they would say “ This is an utter absurdity. The ship carries one set of guns, as one operational purpose, yet some of its men are bound to stay here and some are bound to go there”. What essential difference is there, in these days, between the organization of a battleship and the organization of a military division? What would we say of a squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force if some of the members of its crews had enlisted for service anywhere in the world, whilst others, coming in under compulsory training, were not bound to go anywhere in the world? What sort of mobility would a squadron of that kind have? Yet, Ministers and members who would never dream of suggesting that such an illustration was anything but fantastic, see nothing fantastic at all in an army corps in Australia, under one commander, having one division that can go abroad, a brigade of another division that can go abroad, two brigades which cannot be sent abroad, and so on, each element not kept separate but woven inextricably into the total fabric. That, sir, is a denial of every military principle.
The second thing that I want to say is this - I talk about this quite bluntly, because, we are grown-up people and might as well face some of these unpleasant circumstances: There is at this moment in this country a good deal of mutual criticism between the two armies - the Australian Military Forces and the Australian Imperial Force. We know perfectly well - we hear it on all sides - that there is in the Australian Imperial Force, with the best will in the world, a disposition to make side remarks at the Militia, to suggest that the Militia is a secondary force ; that, not having gone abroad, the members of it are, so to speak, chocolate soldiers.
– That existed when the right honorable gentleman was Prime Minister.
– I am not concerned to know when it started, but I am very much concerned to know what its results are to-day, when these two forces must, for the safety of this country, be welded into one force. There cannot be morale in a total army unless there be mutual confidence and respect among the component parts of it. There is only one way in which that may be secured, and that is bv making it clear that every man who belongs to the Australian Army, who is side by side with American troops in the total allied armies in this country, serves on the same terms, has the same reward - such as it is - has the same rights and exactly the same liability. No man who stands side by side with another on even terms, with the same liability, can afford to criticize the man who is next r,o him. I believe that we cannot make a more magnificent contribution to a really high fighting morale in our forces than by equalizing in every sense the terms of service of the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces.
Finally, in a military sense - and this lias been abundantly pointed out by previous speakers - what sort of absurdity is it to- suggest that, although this kind of change may be necessary if we drive the Japanese on to the defensive, and are able to chase them back into their own islands, it will be time enough to deal with the matter when that happy hour arrives?
– Give them notice.
– What the honorable member says is quite right: - give them notice; say to the enemy: “We thinkthat we are ready for an offensive, so we are going to ask Parliament to free us from all restrictions in order that we may use all our troops in that offensive “. That, in a military sense, would be grotesque. But what is more important still is the point to which I made a glancing reference earlier : the essence of this war is long, painful, careful, hard training - much longer than was previously thought necessary - and swift, ruthless action when the time for action arrives. In the circumstances of modern warfare, an army cannot be trained in a few weeks, after Parliament has passed the necessary legislation to enable troops to be used abroad. If we are to have an Australian army, if we are to have an allied army, capable of taking Amboina, Timor and Java, and of rolling the Japanese back into their own territory, then the time to commence to train, not a portion of that army, not a selected few, but the whole of that army, is to-day. We have no time to lose. How can you begin to train an army on the assumption that it is one army, serving on one condition, when the truth is that it is two armies, with a different basis of service and a markedly different morale in consequence?
– Was not the right honorable gentleman told that there were thousands of men in the Australian Military Forces who had offered for enlistment in the Australian Imperial Force?
– I am sure that there are.
– And that they were not permitted to do so? Consequently, the right honorable gentleman’s point falls to the ground.
– I am grateful to my friend because, with the facts that he has thrust at me I am in entire agreement. Of course there are thousands of such men. The honorable gentleman may go further; he may say to me that if we were to take the whole of the Militia in the circumstances regarding service in which we are placed to-day, and if we reached, the stage of acting on the offensive, SO per cent, of them would volunteer to take part in that offensive. . But that would not enable the army to be moved forward. You could not take 20 per cent, of the men out of a force, and throw the remainder of that force into action; you must have your army organized as one.
– That point was cleared up at a meeting at which the right honorable gentleman was present.
– I am sorry that 1 do not understand that.
– I am not permitted to give the details.
– All that I need say is this: I am discussing, as are other honorable members on this side of the House, a matter of great and vital public importance in Australia. If there be an answer to what I have been putting, then T should like to hear it; because I have not yet heard it, either elsewhere or here.
– What happens to a unit when 20 per cent, of its strength arc casualties? It goes back into battle.
– The honorable mem her would be the last person to suggest: that such a unit would be at its full state of efficiency.
– But that would not prevent it from going back into battle.
– I accept_ the honorable member’s interjection; it sums up the whole of my case. My case is, that if an army had to go forward to the attack with 20 per cent, of its members extracted from it, it would be like a unit going into battle after having lost 20 per cent, of its strength and efficiency.
– I wish to make a personal explanation. The effect of the partial quotation from a previous speech of mine in this House, read by the Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford), has been to misrepresent me. The Minister for Air read the following words from a speech that I made in this House eleven days after the outbreak of war - t consider that the greatest obligation of citizenship of any man is the obligation to be trained, prepared, and ready to fight to defend bis land within its own borders … In ruse there should be any misapprehension of my attitude. I may say that in existing circumstances I do not regard it as safe to permit any man to leave this country to fight oversea*.
That passage is not complete. A gross misrepresentation is caused by those words having been lifted from their context. I propose now to read certain complete sentences which will serve to make clear the attitude of mind which I was expressing in the chamber on that occasion. Here they are -
I consider that the greatest obligation of citizenship of any man is the obligation to be trained, prepared and ready to fight to defend his land within its own borders. To that end, the Government should lose no time whatever in re-proclaiming compulsory military service in Australia.
– Why not read the lot ?
– If honorable members desire me to read the whole passage I shall do so. It continues - [ am amazed to find, in this, the second week of war, that Australia is drivelling along with a small volunteer force, and apparently is not intending to re-proclaim that system of compulsory universal training which, on the occasion “of the last great war, provided us with some assurance that we had within our own borders a body of partially trained mid equipped mcn who could immediately be put into the field to defend our own country. I am quite aware of the difficulties which the la-ads of the .military services have raised with regard to the training of the men who would be called up under a system of compulsory universal military training. Whilst I would not dispute that there are severe complications associated with the introduction of compulsory universal military training, J nay that war is war, and that we cannot be fobbed off with any story from the military experts to the effect that trained men are nol: available to train our manhood. If we were confronted next week with an attack by an enemy country whose shores are lapped by the same ocean as laps the shores of this country-
I was there obviously referring to Japan, our present enemy. The extract goes on - and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, because these things develop and break between nations so quickly - we would not tolerate for one moment the story that it was impossible to put mcn in training because trained mcn were not available to train them. There ure in this country thousands of experienced ex-soldiers who are quite capable of giving preliminary, elementary training in warfare, and of instilling discipline into bodies of men, which is the very first step in preparing them for actual warfare. I believe that if this Government were as earnest as it should be, it would lose no time whatever in taking the formal step of re-proclaiming compulsory universal military service for the home defence of this country, and that then it would not tolerate any advice given to it by it* experts to the effect that it is impossible to find mcn capable of training Australian manhood for the defence of their own land. I am not one of those who believe that compulsion should be applied in connexion with the raising of troops for overseas service which might at any time he sent from Australia.
– That is exactly what I said the honorable member had said.
– I was speaking at a time when this country had about 20,000 men in training, men who had done between six and twelve days’ military service only. However, let me continue -
I really believe that the mind of the Australian people was sufficiently clarified on this issue during the last war for one to be able to say with reasonable assurance and accuracy that there could not be found to-day one man occupying an important place in the public life of Australia who would advocate compulsory military service for Australians abroad. In my opinion, that is an accurate statement of the position. I think that it is a crystallization of the public mind, brought about by the conscription referendum campaigns of the last war. For my part, I accept that willingly as being a proper policy foi this country. On the other hand, I believe that the ultimate fate of Australia may well be decided without one shot being fired within the borders of this country. A land. 3,000,000 square miles in area, with so sparse a population as we have - a -mere 7,000,000 people - is entirely incapable of the utmost efforts of its manhood and its resources which would be necessary ultimately to ensure it” own protection against attack by a powerful and populous military aggressor. That drives me to the conclusion that, irrespective of any necessity with which wo may be confronted immediately to defend our own country, our fate could well be sealed by the defeat of Great Britain abroad. To that end, if th<» time should arise when we were able to feel, hy a clarification of the relations between th» various nations - which is not apparent to-day - that it would be safe for this country to permit some of its own sons to participatein the defenceof the British Empire abroad, we should be willing to permit men to volunteer for that service. Those who volunteered should be facilitated to go abroad to fight for the defence of the British Empire, with which I am positive is wrapped up the ultimate fate of this country.
– I rise to a point of order. During the last war, I made a number of admirable speeches against conscription, and I should like to know whether this would be an appropriate time to have those speeches re-published.
– I should have preferred to be more brief, but it appears to be the will of the House to hear more of the speech. It continues -
In case there should be any misapprehension of my attitude, I may say that in existing circumstances I do not regard it as safe permit any man to leave this country to fight overseas .
I claim that the Minister for Air, by quoting certain words out of sequence has grossly misrepresented what I said.
– I desire to make a personal explanation.
– Does the honorable member claim that he has been misrepresented ?
– Yes. I claim that I was misrepresentedby the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) when he said that I had misrepresented him. [ let him off lightly; I ought to have quoted the whole passage.
Mr.FORDE (Capricornia -Minister for the Army) [3.24]. - The speeches which have been made from the Opposition side have failed signally to justify the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden). I understand that several members of the Opposition realize that the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition was forced to move to-day does a great disservice to Australia at a time when the enemy is thundering at our gates. I believe that the action of the Leader of the Opposition was dictated by those who have always favoured conscription for overseas service. Against the advice of their leaders, they forced this distasteful task on the Leader of the Opposition. The moving of this amendment strikes a blow at national unity at a time when it is absolutely necessary that we should have the fullest possible measure of harmony and co-operation. It is also a gross infringement of a promise given by the Opposition to the Government when it took office, namely, that it would co-operate in every way possible, and would refrain from party politics. Every body realizes that it is vitally necessary to strengthen our armed forces at this time, so that we may effectively defend Australia against attack; yet here we have an amendment the purpose of which is to send Australia’s armed forces out of the country. The Leader of the Opposition referred to members of the Australian Imperial Force now in Australia. For security reasons, I do not propose to state the exact number, but I may say that there are many more thousands of members of the Australian Imperial Force in Australia to-day than the last Government sent overseaswhile it was in office. There is no legal impediment to the sending of members of the Australian Imperial Force overseas should it become necessary. They volunteered to fight either here or overseas. Consequently, the time is inopportune to bring forward a proposal of the kind movedby the Leader of the Opposition. There was no need for it. We, as a Government, have done everything that the Commander in Chief of the Allied Forces in the Western Pacific has asked us to do, and everything that our own military advisers have asked us to do. There are powerful interests in the United States of America opposed to the sending of aeroplanes, soldiers and equipment to Australia, and prepared to put every difficulty in the way of their own Government. No doubt, they will seize eagerly on this debate in the House to-day as a reason why the Government of the United States of America should decline to send us any further help. Although the actual position is well understood by the President of the United States of America, by his Cabinet and by his chiefs of staff, it is not so well understood by the 130,000,000 people of that country. Certain newspapers there will play up the statements made in this Parliament as a reason why the United States of America should adopt a policy of isolation.
Whether intentionally or not, any action taken by the Opposition, actuated by party political motives, to embarrass the Government, will increase the difficulties of those in other countries who desire to help Australia.
– The Opposition is playing into the hands of Axis propagandists.
– Yes, and into the hands of Quislings in other countries who wish to prevent the despatch of men and equipment in order to strengthen our defences. They are using every conceivable method in an endeavour, by hook or by crook, to interrupt the flow of men and materials to Australia. By engaging in this bitter party political strife, the Opposition is helping those people at a time when our security is endangered as never before. Members of the Advisory War Council, who know the true position,, are not free to tell the facts to the House. All the forces that we can muster in Australia must be properly trained and equipped to defend this country. We have more than 100,000 men of the Australian Imperial Force, many thousands of whom have not served abroad. In addition, many thousands of men of the Australian Military Forces, who have been placed on the Australian Imperial Force reserve list, can be called up at any time to fight in the Australian Imperial Force either in Australia or abroad. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) stated that the Government has refused to organize the manhood of Australia. Surely bc was not serious! He knows that the number of men in training in Australia is more than two and a half times the number in training six months age. He is also aware that the strength of the Australian Imperial Force in Australia was never greater than it is at the present time. No legal impediment debars those men from being despatched overseas.
– Members of the Opposition constantly complain that Army call-ups are embarrassing industry.
– That is true. The industrial man-power of the country was never trained before as it is trained today. The munitions factories employ a much larger number of hands than ever before. That is due to the complete- re-organization that has occurred since’ the Labour Government took office.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) and other speakers have criticized the contentions of the Opposition in various ways, and I shall not go over the same ground. The honorable member for Bourke correctly pointed out that the previous Government gave all kinds of undertakings that men would not be compelled to fight outside Australia. The Labour Government has been criticized for having omitted to amend the Defence Act for the purpose of permitting the despatch of the Australian Military Forces to distant theatres of war. If honorable members opposite believed in that principle, why did not they amend the act when they had an opportunity to do so? At that time, the need to retain troops in Australia was not so urgent as it is to-day. Honorable members who have attended secret meetings of the House realize the dire necessity for improving our defences. We have not yet reached the stage when we can afford to release our troops to fight shoulder to shoulder with our American allies in the defence of New Zealand or elsewhere. Considerably more than 100,000 men are willing and anxious to be despatched abroad to any point where they will come to grips with the enemy. Much has been made of the fact that, as certain units of the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces are being trained side by side, it is not fair that one section should be sent overseas, whilst the other is not. The point was rightly taken by the honorable member for Bourke that section 49 of the Defence Act provides that no member of even the Permanent Military Forces shall be sent to a distant theatre of war unless he consents. Honorable members opposite know the policy of the Labour party. In the past, we stood definitely for the voluntary enlistment of men for the Australian Imperial Force, and for reinforcements. We continue to stand for that policy.
– What was the attitude of the Labour party in 193-9 ?
– Admittedly, changes have been made ; but the honorable member for Indi has also altered his view.
– I have adapted my view to various developments in the war.
– The Labour party has been bitterly criticized because it considered, early in the war, that Australian troops should not be sent abroad. It was not alone in holding that view. A former Minister for the Army, the late Mr. Gr. A. Street, stated on one occasion that this war was vastly different from the war of 1914-18. In view of the threat from Japan, he could not visualize the despatch at that time of an expeditionary force from these shores. Some time later, the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) admitted that members of the United Australia party were criticizing him because the Australian Imperial Force had not been despatched overseas. But the right honorable gentleman declared that the threat to the north of Australia prevented the Commonwealth Government from denuding the country of troops, as they might be required at any moment to resist an invader.
– A complete metamorphosis has taken place.
– If the Menzies Government considered it prudent to take precautions against an invasion two years ago, surely the danger from Japan is ten times greater now. As Minister for the Army, I state that a dire necessity exists for us to strain every nerve in order to improve our defences. Any honorable member, who introduces a note of dissension and plays the game of politics, does a disservice to Australia.
– Last evening we witnessed consternation among government supporters when the House debated Statutory Rule No. 11 ; but that consternation was as nothing compared with the devastating effects apparent when this amendment fell among them with the force of a 5,000-1’b. bomb. The Government has not completely recovered from the shock, and most Ministers appear to be “bomb happy”, in the way in which they have delivered their speeches. I have a high regard for the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), whose clarity of speech and fertility of imagination provide an object lesson for all honorable members ; but the right honorable gentleman was never seen to greater disadvantage than he was to day. I admire the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) for his logic; he takes his stand on the highest principles. But to-day, he succeeded only in explaining that political and industrial Labour was opposed to the amendment of the Defence Act for the purpose of enabling the Australian Military Forces to be sent to distant theatres of war. For the first time, the honorable member forsook those high principles and placed his party before the national need. Although I was not privileged to listen to the speech of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), I have no doubt that he also succeeded in ranging himself on the side of the Government. The Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford) endeavoured to make clear to the House something about which he himself was obviously not clear. I shall be generous to the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde), because he is called upon to do a most difficult job. I pay him the tribute of saying that he carries out his responsibilities quite successfully and I shall not criticize him. Doubtless he would be much happier in mind if he knew that he had one army under one commander-in-chief responsible for Allied operations in the Pacific theatre of war, in order to obtain the maximum results from the forces.
As I see it, there are two courses open to Australia: We can, as’ a nation, organize purely for the purpose of defending Australia, or, as one of the democracies and a member of the British Empire, organize in order to encompass the defeat of the enemy. If the Government proposes to adhere to the first policy, it means that we shall not seek to regain for ourselves and other countries their lost democratic privileges, but we shall pursue a policy of isolation. Incidentally, some honorable members opposite are noted for their advocacy of that policy. If we adopt their outlook, we must recall all our troops who have been despatched abroad. Without them, the complete defence of Australia is not possible. Some honorable members opposite have spoken glibly of the man-power that is available in Australia. They overlook the fact that there is a great difference between available man-power and an efficient, welltrained army. The Government is now welding the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces into one force, and 1 agree with that policy.
– Is the Government welding or soldering the forces?
– They must be welded into one army. When the offensive, for which we earnestly pray, is launched against the enemy, it will not be fair to ask the Australian Imperial Force to defend in distant theatres the principles of democracy, because this is a privilege which devolves upon every male Australian. I pay this tribute to the Australian Military Forces, that many of its members who formerly did not feel theurge to don khaki would now be grievously disappointed if they were not permitted to fight with the Australian Imperial Force in order to finish the job once and for all. Honorable members need make few inquiries to satisfy themselves of that. If the Government intends to follow the first course, it should formally advise the enemy that we shall prevent it from landing in Australia, but not pursue it beyond Australia, and our allies that, no matter what blows may be struck at them, we have no interest in anything but our own fate. We shall tell ‘the world that our all-in war effort, of which wo are so proud, is a tinselled sham, and that we are not willing to translate our words into action. To our everlasting shame we shall tell those who are supporting us that, whilst we are prepared to use all their organization and resources, we are not prepared to go outside Australia to protect their interests.
If we decide upon the second course, to pursue the enemy to his ultimate defeat, then let us delay no further our decision as to what we must do to make the most effective contribution to the successful prosecution of the war by the use of our men and resources. Let us remove the legal impediment which prevents the Government from using the forces of Australia to the best advantage. If this legal impediment be removed, the Government will have the right to move our men under the Commander-in-Chief, according to the strategy laid down for the Pacific zone, when the time is ripe to do so and to train our men with that objective in view, for, mark you, if forces are to go overseas, they must be trained in the technique of invasion and in the building of invasion equipment. Months and months of intensive training will be needed to fit shock troops to invade the shores of enemy-occupied islands. Those men can be trained in invasion tactics only if the legal barrier to their going overseas is swept away. The removal of that barrier will permit the cohesion of the Australian Imperial Force and the Australian Military Forces into one army and develop a brotherhood which will be irresistible when the offensive takes place. Unfortunately, however, not only this Government, but also the great bulk of the people of Australia, who by some mischance or other are infected by the Asquithian microbe of “wait and see “, believe that the time is not ripe for this barrier to be removed. Successive governments must shoulder the blame for any deficiency in our war effort; not only governments, but also the general public have dallied and dallied and dallied, always saying, “ The time is not ripe “ for this or that. If we put off action we ought to take now until such time as we consider that the opportunity is present either to invade or to develop an offensive - and honorable members opposite say that when that opportunity comes the necessary steps to remove this impediment will be taken–
-No, they do not.
– Then the honorable member agrees that the enemy will not be pursued beyond Australia?
– Not by conscripts.
– I am surprised at the honorable member. He should immediately advise our allies that it is unfair for them to conscript their troops to help us to fight the Japanese and that they ought to revert to the voluntary system. What an extraordinary state of affairs it is for honorable members opposite to advocate the use of conscripted troops by our allies and to deny the right of Australia to conscript its men to march shoulder to shoulder with them. If we do wait until that opportunity comes to amend the Defence Act and regulations against the despatch of conscripted troops overseas, we shall say to Japan : “ Now, boys, you can expect the offensive within two or three weeks. We are ready. We have the equipment and we have altered the law and now we are taking the offensive.” What a ridiculous state of affairs! Why not lift the legal impediment to-day and permit our men to be trained so that we may strike without warning? It has been said by some honorable members and the press that General MacArthur, for whom I have the highest regard, will be given the right to use troops when and where the occasion demands. That specious argument will not cut much ice with the people. In the first place, General MacArthur is limited to the number of troops that the Government is prepared to make available to him, and, secondly, he has no control over the southern Pacific zone, so that, if New Zealand were invaded, notwithstanding all the flapdoodle and poppycock about his being able to use his forces according to necessities, our sister dominion would be left without aid from this country.
– All the troops needed to go to New Zealand would be made available.
– When the time is ripe! The Government’s attitude reminds me of the drought-stricken farmer who, having lost all his feed and stock but one dying horse, pleaded, “Live, horse, and you will get hay “. When the time is ripe, men will be made available to General MacArthur! What an attitude! The tempo of modern war is so rapid that if the Government waits until the time is ripe to take action, the opportunity will be missed. Thus I place no reliance whatever on that statement.
– What about New Caledonia ?
– Yes, but New Zealand is a sufficient example. I believe firmly in the principles of democracy. Governing is the responsibility of the Government, and, with all deference to General MacArthur, for whom I again express my admiration, I have grave doubt whether it would be competent for him to do the Government’s work. Nor would he be prepared to do it. He would not presume to attempt to govern this country by directing the Government to supply his full needs or by demanding the amendment of our law. He would take what was given to him by the Government, and, even if not satisfied, would make no public demur. The Government cannot burk the issue It has a job to do and should do it. I intend to vote for the amendment, because the present position is impossible. I cannot conceive that when the ultimate offensive is launched the Government will say to the Australian Military Forces “ Halt ! You have gone as far as the confines of Australia. We shall now declare peace on your behalf. Forward, Australian Imperial Force! Go abroad and clean up the enemy”. The Australian Imperial Force would not shirk that order. It is carrying on the traditions of the Australian Imperial Force in the last war, when I saw battalions, sadly depleted, fight on and hold almost impossible positions because of their undaunted and unconquerable spirit. The Australian Imperial Force will go abroad, but now that the men in the Australian Military Forces are in khaki, they also will want to go forward marching side by side with their comrades in arms, to finish the war.
Government supporters have charged the Opposition with playing party politics. I am firmly convinced that on reflection they will not try to pin that charge on the Opposition, but the Opposition can, in truth, match their charge, because ten days after the United States of America came into the war, we, because we were tired of waiting for the Government to act, sent a letter to the Prime Minister. We have patiently awaited a reply to that letter, but he has not had the courtesy to answer it. Our patience is not inexhaustible, and we were compelled to-day to proceed with this amendment in order to indicate our stand. Honorable members opposite live in the thick of party politics.. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) showed that when he said that the Government was afraid that, if it lifted the embargo against Australian conscripts going overseas, the trade union movement would wipe it out of existence. To describe the attitude of the Government, I use the words employed by the honorable member for Bourke and say that it is putting party before national interests.
Mr.WILSON (Wimmera) [4.0].- I had not intended to speak during the debate but certain statements have been made which call for a reply. Previous speakers on the Government side of the House have replied on certain aspects, but I propose to quote an extract from an important Victorian country newspaper published in one of the major towns in my electorate, which, to my mind, fairly and accurately reflects public opinion on what appears to be a censure motion launched by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden). The article was published in the Swan Hill Guardian on the 27th April, and is as follows : -
page 829
Censure Motion would be Near-Treason.
People would Resent Unpatriotic Act.
Every loyal Australian is disgusted at the announcement that the launching of a censure motion against the Curtin Government is being mooted by a section of the Federal Opposition.
– The article proceeds-
The sponsors should be aware of the odium with which they will be regarded if they persist in their intention when Parliament next assembles.
Such an action at this critical stage of our national war effort would savour of something near to treason and would earn the righteous indignation of every loyal and patriotic citizen in the Commonwealth.
In the people’s opinion the Curtin Government is tackling its huge job of conducting the war effort in the face of unprecedented difficulties with courage, ruthlessness, sincerity, common sense and patriotism. No act or omission by that Government justifies a censure motion - a luxury in peace time, but despicable and dangerous at this crucial point in the nation’s destiny.
To resort to the old party political dodge of fomenting turmoil to the embarrassment of the Government suggests that the real motives are selfishness and petty ambition. When in opposition and at a less critical phase of the war as directly affecting Australia’s defence, Mr. Curtin exercised scrupulous forbearance. What a self-righteous howl went up from unctuous members of the then administration when there were suggestions that the Menzies Government should be censured!
The people are satisfied that the Curtin Government is performing a real job. It should be left free to continue conducting the war effort undisturbed by the veilings of selfish place-seekers.
At no time has that newspaper been an upholder of the policy of the Labour party. Honorable members must take notice of the views expressed in that article, which was published in a newspaper which has a long and honorable history. It indicates clearly that the Australian people are satisfied that the Government is doing a good job, that it came to the rescue of the nation when it was most needed, and that it has had the onerous job of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. In its political zeal the Opposition is desirous of continuing the disastrous policy that it pursued while it occupied the treasury bench. As a result of the policy of the previous Government we had the dissipation of our armed forces over many theatres of war. We lost more than a division at Singapore, we lost large numbers of troops in Greece, in Crete, and in Malaya, and had the Opposition members had their way I believe that units of the Australian Imperial Force which are at present overseas would have been sent to various theatres of war in which to-day there is no air support whatever. Possibly, we should have experienced another debacle such as was experienced at Singapore. I express my gratitude to the leaders of the Government for the sane policy they have adopted of concentrating as many of our troops as possible within Australian boundaries while there is such a great menace to our native land.
Much has been said about the distinctions that have been made between the Australian Military Forces and the Australian Imperial Force. I direct attention to the epic story of the fight put up at Rabaul when the Japanese landed there,a story that will go down in history, relating the heroism of a force which was largely composed of militiamen against overwhelming odds and tremendous difficulties. Those members of the Australian Military Forces put up a marvellous fight, yet there are still some people who desire to make a distinction between the two branches of our military forces.
– Our objection is to the distinction that has been created.
– So long as the present Government continues to govern wisely and to follow the lines it has adopted for the defence of the country I have no doubt that it will retain the confidence of the people. If the Leader of the Opposition is genuine in his attack and is prepared to accept the decision of the people on it - although I cannot speak on behalf of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) - I shall be prepared to vote with the Opposition, and, if necessary, go to the country on the issue. The newspaper article I have read fairly accurately expresses the feelings of the general public towards the amendment now before the House.
.- There is an air of unreality about the proceedings in this chamber due to the contrast between the tone of the debate and the tone of the war news that we have heard to-day. The news indicated a very critical situation for the Allied armies in Burma and the possible encirclement of the Chinese forces, and it carried the gravest implications for the people of this country. After hearing that, we came into this chamber only to hear honorable members still mouthing their old shibboleths, still stubbornly supporting outmoded planks of their party platforms, regardless of the enormous changes taking place at this moment which threaten not only our civilian rights and cherished beliefs, but also the very lives of our people. I regret that this debate has taken place. It was no wish of mine that it should be initiated. But the duty of the Opposition is to enunciate the principles upon which it believes that the defence of Australia should be founded and to do so with all the force and clarity that it can command. I sincerely regret that it should have ‘been considered necessary to move an amendment which will require a division of the House. It is a bad policy to divide the Parliament on an issue such as this. There have been faults on both sides in the administration of our war effort, but the Government was gravely at fault when it refused to-day to accept power to conscript Australians for overseas service in the event of such actionbecoming necessary. Only yesterday, it asked for complete power over every individual and all property in the Commonwealth under Statutory Rules 1942, No. 77, so that in any emer- gency it should not be hamstrung by lack of power. All that this proposed amendment provides is that the Government shall not be embarrassed at any time dur ing the war owing to lack of power to send Australian troops abroad. Why on earth the Government could not accept that offer of power is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable individual. If it does not wish to exercise such power, owing to a fanatical belief in the principles of the Labour party’s platform, there is nothing to compel it to do so. But the events of the war may occur so rapidly that the Government will find itself, willy-nilly, obliged to do things in contravention of all its beliefs, including preservation of the White Australia policy, about which we have already heard something, and no conscription for overseas service. These things will all go by the board if the danger threatening Australia is great enough. I shall not contrast our war effort with the war efforts of the United States of America, New Zealand and Great Britain, but I can properly compare our effort with what has happened in Canada in the last week. What was done there is merely what the Opposition desires to do here, by means of the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Canada is not introducing conscription for overseas service at this moment, but it has taken a referendum for the purpose of freeing the Government from the pledge, which it gave on the election platforms, that it would not introduce conscription.Canada is one of the safest countries in the world, because alongside it are all the power and resources of the United States of America. However, the Canadian Government considered it necessary to have a free hand to conscript citizens for overseas service should it be desirable to do so at any moment. In effect, that is all that the Opposition desires to do here. But the Government, instead of accepting this power, looks upon the amend- ment as a challenge to its authority and treats it as a motion of censure. Could anything be more ridiculous in view of the danger that confronts us and in view of the Prime Minister’s threat yesterday to resign if he were not granted the power provided in Statutory Rule No. 77. The right, honorable gentleman did not threaten to resign to-day, because he does not want the power which the Opposition seeks to give to him. This matter can be misrepresented both, overseas and at home. It is not a conscription issue. The amendment does not expressly request the Government to send conscripted troops overseas, hf honorable members on the Government side of the chamber earnestly believe that we shall win the war, as I do, they must know that it can be won only by the Allied Nations taking the offensive. It can never be won by merely defending Australia from aggression. It can be won only by driving the Japanese out of New Guinea, Timor, Java and the Philippines and. forcing them back on to their own territory. We shall have to send men, munitions and weapons on to Japanese soil. In the final analysis, that means that troops from the Allied Nations will have to invade Japan. ,Who will supply these troops - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great, Britain or the United States of America? Of course, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), with his usual scorn of Great Britain and everything British, and his tribute to the people of the United States of America, regards the amendment as a fifth column effort.
– So it is.
– Apparently, the honorable gentleman believes that it will prejudice Australia’s chances of obtaining adequate aid from the United States of America. He fears the effect of this amendment upon American opinion. He is afraid that American conscripts will not be sent to Australia to help him and to save the Labour party’s platform and everything for which it stands. That is all that is worrying him. Such a line of thought does not do credit to either the honorable member or this nation. Time after time in this House, I have heard the honorable member belittling the British troops, and everything that has been done for this country by Great Britain during the last 150 years. If I rightly judge what he has said from time to time, his sentiments would receive endorsement if Great Britain were given a good drubbing. In my opinion, division of the House on an issue such as this is not desirable. Nothing is gained by raising an issue that will he misrepresented in the country at this particularly serious stage of our history. Members of the Opposition sincerely desire to help the Government. On the 17th December last, a week or ten days after Japan had entered the war, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) wrote to the Prime Minister what I believe every body will agree was a very reasonable letter, in which he offered the complete co-operation of the Opposition, without any desire to embarrass the Government, in securing an amendment of the Defence Act which would enable the Government to act swiftly in any emergency that might arise. By the same token, the Opposition supported the request of the Government, for the endorsement of Statutory Rule No. 77. Although, as I said last night, I have some misgivings as to the administration of that statutory rule by certain Ministers, I nevertheless supported it, feeling that the Government ought to have the powers that it confers to act swiftly. That is the only reason for our acceptance of the statutory rule. After listening to the present debate, I believe that it is unlikely that the Government would exercise the power that the Opposition now offers to help it to obtain. That is regrettable. There would be no merit in giving such power to a Cabinet that would not use it in appropriate circumstances. The time must come when every member on the Government side will be obliged to recant what he has said to-day. If the Government does not take the action now advocated by the Opposition, Australia will not be able to pull its weight with its allies in this war. Whatever our private beliefs may be at the moment, force of circumstances will compel us to do our duty and play our part. We have to win this war. We have to make Australia secure for both ourselves and our children, and the only way in which that can be done is by defeating the enemy. We shall defeat the enemy only by taking the fight to his door.
I have said that, had the matter been left to me, I would not call for a division or have made this an issue in a debate. Even though the vote may be on party lines, I do not intend to record a vote.
.- Statutory Rule No. 77 gives to the Government complete power over persons and property, and I believe that it is equally essential for the executive government of this country, and our service chiefs, to have absolute power over every armed man in Australia. In common with the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony), I do not feel very happy at the thought of some of those who may have the administration of Statutory Rule No. 77; but in spite of that fact, I believe that it is vital to our national existence that the Executive should have such powers, and for that reason I voted for it, and am prepared to support it. Throughout the last war, and from the day that I entered this House, I have held one view in respect of conscription and the defence of Australia. I have always regarded as extremely stupid the pacifist views of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), but have given him credit for being sincere and honest in holding them. That honorable gentleman has said that I have changed my views. That is a deliberate untruth. In the first speech that I made in this House, disregarding my formal speech in seconding the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, I said that I believed that Australia would have to send troops to the defence of Singapore, and to assist in the defence of the Netherlands East Indies and other islands to the north of Australia.
– The honorable gentleman said there should not be conscription.
– I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that I was not prepared to conscript men to take part in a European war, because I believed that we could obtain a sufficient number of volunteers to do our share, as we did on the last occasion. I voted against conscription at both of the referendums submitted to the people during the last war, and I have not since changed my mind in any way. To-day, the position is different. One does not need to be a great tactician or strategist to realize that the previous war was 17,000 miles away. To-day, it is across the Torres Straits, right at our doorway. The enemy is belting at islands, to the defence of which the honorable member was not prepared to allow one militiamanto be sent. He would permit the enemy to become established on an island that is only a step from our own cities.
– I was not prepared to compel any one to go there.
– I have not changed my view; I always stand by what I say. We should not rely upon defending Australia inside its borders. Unfortunately, we have allowed Timor, the Solomons, and other islands, to be seized, because our manhood wasnot compulsorily trained or armed and we were consequently not in a position to provide troops who would have helped to defend those places.
– If the honorable gentleman possessed any knowledge of the Timor incident, he would not say that. What he has said is not a fact.
– I know that a few men were sent there. It was the old story of a boy being sent on a man’s errand.
– No; it was the wish of the British Government that our troops should be withdrawn.
– Because sufficient men could not be sent to defend it?
– No.
– Possibly the troops were withdrawn for international reasons.
– Yes.
– But no international reasons arose with regard to the defence of Java.
– Do not press that matter.
– We sent one division to Singapore where there were two white divisions and some native troops, and we lost the key to our defence. Singapore was as much the key to the defence of Australia as Sydney or Newcastle is. We sent a few men to Singapore to be sacrificed to a paltry political shibboleth, that honorable members opposite have preached.
– What about Greece?
– In view of the fact that they had encouraged the Greeks to resist the Axis powers and promised to help them, if the British had not sent troops there, they would have gone down in history as a race of skunks. Despite the fact that we were defeated, and that many young and gallant Australians lost their lives in Greece, I am proud of the fact that they went there. The Australian Imperial Force did not “ squeal “ about it; the only “ squealers “ were those who stayed at home. On Gallipoli we clung to the side of a hill for seven months under conditions which only one small portion of the present Australia Imperial Force) - I refer to the Tobruk garrison - has experienced. I carry today the marks of my experiences on Gallipoli. I believe that four or five divisions, with our Air Force and Navy, are all we could be expected to send to a European theatre of war. That would be a fair share for Australia to contribute to the defence of the Empire; but when an appeal is made to us for the defence of this land and the liberties we enjoy, self-preservation is the first law of nature, and every man in this country who is capable of bearing arms should be prepared to defend it. He should be ready to go, not only to Darwin, but also to Timor or Java, in order to push the Japanese back into their own islands, and make them pay in blood and tears for what they are doing to-day. The only place in which the Japanese can be destroyed is in their own country.
When Japan came into the war and had some success, the Prime Minister “ squealed “ for assistance from the United States of America; but he knew that the men who would be sent from that country to our assistance were conscripts. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), who is now representing or misrepresenting the people of Australia at Washington-
– That is unfair.
– He complained that Canada was not doing anything to help Australia.
– That is not so. He has done a great service to this country.
– So has Mr. Casey. The Attorney-General is merely carrying on the job that Mr. Casey started, and he is taking a lot of the credit that is due to Mr. Casey. It was stated in American and Australian newspapers, and was not denied by the AttorneyGeneral or the Government, that he had said that Canada was doing nothing to help Australia but was sending all its men and goods to Britain. Possibly the reason was that many Canadians fav oured conscription, and thought that unless they went to England they might be sent to the assistance of a sister dominion which was not prepared to despatch its young men overseas to defend the approaches to Australia. During the last war I commanded for five years an Australian Militia Division that supplied more than its own strength to the Australian Imperial Force. Those men would have taken it as a personal insult if they had been denied the right to stand alongside their comrades in the Australian Imperial Force in the defence of Australia, to go to Java, Singapore or anywhere else to assist their allies, the Americans, the Canadians and the Chinese, and finally to defeat and destroy the common enemy. They would have done their utmost to overthrow any government that had endeavoured to prevent them.
The . Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) remarked that a great number of members of the Militia was on the Australian Imperial Force reserve. Another honorable member said that he believed that 80 per cent, of the Militia would go overseas, if asked to do so. I believe that they would, but, unfortunately, they have not been organized for that purpose. If honorable members opposite would take notice of the opinions of men like Wavell and Allenby, or would go back to Wellington and Napoleon, they -would discover that a great- deal more work is involved, and a great deal more ability is demanded in preparing the transport of army supplies and equipment for a great expeditionary force than in executing the actual attack on the foe. The greater task is that of organizing the supplies and sending the troops into battle with the training and equipment necessary to win.
It has been said that this matter should not have been ventilated in the House; but a week after Japan came into the war the Prime Minister received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) a letter which it did not act upon and which it even ignored. Honorable members opposite have said to-day that this amendment is a party political move. So far as I am concerned I do not care twopence about politics to-day.
– The honorable member consistently supports those who do.
– Yes, because I dis trust men like the honorable member, and I make no secret of it. I am certain that if the Japanese landed at Newcastle the honorable member would grab the fastest car he could find and would make off in their direction so that he might offer himself as a Quisling.
– The honorable member is just a good old “ Nat “.
– I am a good Australian. I fought for this country in the last war, and it is not my fault that I am not fighting for it now. The Government did not reply to the letter from the Opposition because Ministers thought that it was a politically dangerous thing to touch despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde), and General MacArthur have stated over and over again that we are about to take the offensive against the enemy. How are we to do it?
– In the air.
– You can attack as much as you like in the air, but you cannot win a campaign in the air. A campaign can be won only when the pick of your young men are prepared to take their rifles and bayonets, or other appropriate weapons, and meet the best of the enemy chest to chest. In Libya, the -fighting has come to a matter of bayonets over and over again, in spite of assertions of armchair soldiers that the day of the infantryman is past. The infantryman is the backbone of the army, and always will be.
I wish now to refer to the so-called independents who are keeping this Government in power, one of whom used to say, in season and out of season, that he believed in conscription. Now he seems to be prepared to change his mind every day, provided he is given a job and a bit of kudos. Despite the fact that the Government is not prepared to introduce conscription in order to attack the islands to the north, which are as important to us as Darwin, he continues to support it. He was prepared to play the deuce until the acid test was put on him.
– To whom does the honorable member refer?
– To the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles). I do not know whether it is correct to describe him as honorable.
– The honorable member does not speak like that as a rule.
– I feel very strongly on this subject.
The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) has said that he is behind the Government and, despite the fact that he also is extremely independent, he produced a newspaper, published in a ‘ northern Victorian town, and dated the 27th April, in which there is published a statement regarding a motion in the party room on the 30th April! It is very similar to a statement which appeared over the name of the honorable member in the Sydney Daily Telegraph a little while ago. I do not know how the newspaper people could have known what was to happen in the Opposition party room; perhaps they have second sight in Swan Hill. When I suggested that the honorable member might have paid to have the statement published, he said that I need not judge him by myself. I recall that, when ex-Senator Hardy, as organizer for Mr. McClelland, was pushing the honorable member for Wimmera very hard during the last election campaign, the honorable member was in no way backward in wiring and ringing me for electioneering material which he arranged to be published in the newspapers, and which, no doubt, he paid for. I wish to make my position absolutely clear for the benefit of, not only the House and my constituents, but also the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn). I assure him that I do not change my opinion, and I defy him to prove the contrary by anything which appears in Hansard. I say definitely that I am opposed to conscription for service in Europe because I believe that we can do our share without it. I also said that we must be prepared to defend the areas north of Australia which obviously, even at the beginning of the war, were seriously threatened. People laughed at me for saying that we would have to send forces to Singapore in order to defend this country, but eventually that was found necessary.
– There is no difficulty in discerning the motive which prompted the Opposition to move this amendment. Unfortunately, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) has been placed in a very invidious position. He had in the party room very strenuously opposed the proposal that the Government should be challenged on this issue, but he was forced into his present position by the tactics adopted by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), who has decided that this is an appropriate time to make a bid for leadership.
– That is a plain lie!
– I rise to a point of order.I submit that the Minister is not privileged to misrepresent what takes place in the party room, and I ask that the statement be withdrawn.
– Order ! If a request is made that the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) withdraw his remark, he must withdraw it.
– Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am being asked to withdraw my observation?
– Yes.
– I am quite indifferent to anything that the right honorable member for Kooyong may say. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am not guessing. I am reliably informed as to what happens in the Caucus meetings of the parties opposite. Honorable members opposite believe that their Caucus meetings are secret. We have ways and means of finding out what happens at those meetings.
Let us examine the motives behind this proposal. I repeat that the right honorable member for Kooyong has decided that this is an appropriate time to make another bid for leadership of the Opposition parties; and, in order to achieve his ambition, he has forced into action his unwilling partner who happens to occupy that position now. At the outbreak of the war certain honorable members who now support the Government, took a very realistic view of the situation. We determined that it was to the best advantage of the allied cause, and the cause of this country, that no man should be sent out of Australia for service overseas. We came to that decision because we believed, as it was obvious to anyone who had made a study of the matter, that Australia must be retained as a base from which operations might be directed against our enemies. So, we said that the maximum man-power must be retained in this country in order that Australia should be adequately defended as a base, and as a source of supplies for the allied cause. What has happened since that time ? The Opposition, when in power, even pressed upon the British authorities the need for sending an Australian expeditionary force overseas. The British authorities did not make the original request to the Australian Government to send troops abroad at all. However, because certain honorable members who sat on the Government benches in this Parliament at that time, wanted to win favour in certain quarters, they pressed upon the British authorities the need for despatching such a force overseas. All that they were concerned about was to get Australian troops on to the battlefield. They were not concerned whether our troops were properly equipped, or as to whether they were actually being sent to be slaughtered, owing to the fact that they were not properly equipped.
– That is an appalling statement, unworthy of a member of a national parliament. It is a damnable statement.
– Every one should bear in mind that the Opposition which now makes this attack upon the Government was itself in part responsible for what happened in Greece, Crete, Libya and Malaya. It was not a Labour government, nor a Labour Minister, who sent those men into battle ill-equipped and without proper air protection. We were not responsible for those things. This Labour Government has laid it down that wherever troops are required to serve under a Labour government, they will be properly equipped, and thus enabled to meet their enemies at least on equal terms. To-day honorable members opposite are parading their patriotism. I believe that you could not find a bigger group of Quislings in any country in the world than among honorable members sitting on the benches opposite - men who would sell their country for party interest and advantage, and are prepared to-day to sacrifice the interests of the nation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), as a member of the Advisory War Council, is in a position to know exactly what the situation is. Only a few days ago he was shown cables dealing with the international position. Despite that, he is still prepared to launch an attack upon the Government in an attempt to divide the nation in the hour of its greatest trial. Are not such men guilty of a real disservice to their country? Are they not guilty of raising an issue at this moment which will divide the nation from end to end? Why do they raise this issue? It is not because they want to help the country in its hour of danger, but simply because, as the Leader of the Opposition himself has said, they feel greatly perturbed over the actions of certain Ministers, who, they allege, are, under the cloak of war emergency, capable of trying to introduce phases of socialism into the government of the country. Thus this attack is not designed to assist the nation. It is an attempt to destroy the Government, because honorable members opposite believe that vested interests are in danger. They are more concerned about protecting vested interests, and their privileges, than about defending the country itself. But to the Labour Government the interests of the country mean everything. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that no matter what brand he might place upon the politics of the Labour Government, I should not worry in the slightest if the Government should entirely sweep aside all vested interests if such action were necessary for the protection of this country against aggressors. But as soon as legislation, or regulations, are introduced, which adversely affect vested interests, honorable members opposite are prepared to seize on any issue in order to divide the nation in the hope that it will mean the destruction of the Labour Government. I feel sure that it will never be said that Australians must be compelled to fight against the enemies of this country. That has never been the case in the past; it will never be so in the future. I think that it was the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) who once said that if a man was not prepared, voluntarily, to defend his country, there must be something wrong with his country. Australians will respond to the call of their country; they will readily make the sacrifices involved in the defence of their country; and they will volunteer to defend it wherever they are required to do so.
What is the issue before the House? It is nothing more or less than the issue of conscription for overseas service. 1 do not want to be always quoting what Labour members say, because honorable members opposite will not accept our views. But the right honorable member for Kooyong himself, during the last war, was opposed to sending mer compulsorily on service abroad. On thi? matter he was attacked by the then Leader of the Country party, the right honorable member for Cowper (Si Earle Page), just after the death of Mr. Lyons. All honorable members are aware of what the right honorable member for Kooyong was accused of on that occasion. I shall not repeat those charges, except to remind the right honorable member that he then reserved to himself the right to say whether he should have served in the last war. I ask him whether he can, now, after he has passed military age, consistently support an amendment which takes away that right and liberty from the individual to determine for himself, according to his own special circumstances, what service he is able to render - the right which the right honorable member so zealously reserved for himself in the last war. I take from Hansard the following statements made by the right honorable member for Cowper on that occasion: -
The Australian Government needs a leader with not merely the qualities I have mentioned, but also the three qualities of courage, loyalty and .judgment, in such degree as will ensure that the people of Australia will give the last ounce of their energies and resources in a united national effort to ensure our preservation … I come now to the third incident:
– Order! Comments by a third party - on a member of the House are not relevant to the subjectmatter of the debate.
– Whether you, Mr. Speaker, say the quotation has any bearing on the subject or not, it certainly appears to be inconsistent for any honororable member to take advantage of a situation, for party purposes, to reverse a decision which he had previously made in regard to the course that he himself must pursue. Three years ago, the right honorable member for Kooyong stated that for private and personal reasons ho had not been able to offer his services in the last war. Many Australians are in a similar position at the present time. Every man who does not join the Services is not necessarily a coward, or a person who does not wish the Axis to be defeated. He may have real private and personal reasons for not offering his services. In proportion to our population, more men are serving in Australia to-day than are serving in the armed forces of Germany.
What would happen if the proposal of the Opposition succeeded? Australian troops could be compelled to fight in distant theatres of war. As the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) stated, many thousands of men in Australia have already volunteered to serve either in Australia or overseas. The previous Government, disregarding the advice of the Labour party, despatched expeditionary forces to the Middle East and Malaya. Recently, the necessity arose for the Labour Government hastily to recall them to Australia for the purpose of defending this country. The previous Government, which was responsible for sending them ill-equipped into battle, endangered them in the conflict and subjected them to risks of disaster on the return voyage to Australia. There will be no doubt as to the co-operation of the Labour party with our allies in defeating Naziism and Fascism, and the Labour party, supported by organized workers, will do everything to assist in the overthrow of our enemies, wherever they may be. But the Government will pursue a policy approved, not by vested interests, but by the Labour movement. Those persons who clamoured for an all-in war effort, will have an all-in war effort, though not of the kind that they expect. Honorable members opposite who endorsed action to restrict the liberty of the worker and to peg wages, now object strenuously to the policy of the Government, because it affects their friends. I should like to know why the right honorable member for Kooyong now supports a policy that he opposed in May, 1939, when he said -
I have already said that compulsory military service overseas in time of war is not part of the policy of this Government, and that the Government stands against it.
In respect of its defence, Australia is in a better position to-day than it has been at any period since the outbreak of war. The improvement has been effected by the Labour Government during the last six months. This morning, I listened to the speech of the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson). Whilst I concede to him the right to make his individual decision upon what he should do or is capable of doing, I deny to him the right to make personal attacks upon the Labour Government which is genuinely doing its best to ensure the adequate defence of the country. What is the position of the honorable member? An ardent advocate of conscription for service overseas, he announced in the House on one occasion that he would be on the first transport that left Australia.
– Was it his fault that he was not?
– I know that he missed the boat. So he was not on the first transport.
– The Minister knows that the honorable member was rejected by the medical examiner.
– The Minister should be fair.
– If honorable members will allow me a moment to explain, I shall be strictly fair. The honorable member for Deakin offered his services. I understand that he was rejected because of faulty vision. He failed to satisfy the doctor that bis eyesight was up to the standard required of a soldier. But the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) has informed me that the physical standard has been reduced, and that possibly some of the men who failed in the medical examination on a previous occasion might succeed now.
The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), who volunteered atthe same time as the honorable member for Deakin, was accepted for service. Later, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) withdrew him from the Army, and he became a Minister. The need for his services as a Minister no longer exists. We may rightly ask this man to explain why he did not return to the Army.
– Is the Minister prepared to come with him?
– If I were to accompany the honorable member for Bendigo, I should be quite certain of returning to Australia. I should be quite safe if I remained with him.
– The Minister knows that that is an offensive lie.
– Order ! The expression “ offensive lie “ is objectionable, and I must maintain the dignity of the House. Any more of these expressions will have to be unequivocally withdrawn.
– All I ask is that members of the Opposition will be consistent. Every one cannot be in the Army, the Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force. As I stated previously, the proportion of men in Australia who are serving in the fighting forces is greater, in proportion to population, that it is in any other country, including Germany. We must maintain and expand our essential industries. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) has complained of difficulties caused by the lack of man-power in the rural industries in his electorate. What will happen if the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition be adopted? Persons in the electorate of Bendigo, who are now appealing to the Government to make more labour available to them, will be placed in a worse position than ever. In addition, Australia will be “bled white” of its manhood. We must have some regard for the future of the country. During the last war, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), believing that the conscription referendum would be carried, converted showgrounds and race-courses into camps for the purpose of receiving large numbers of men. The right honorable gentleman also had in the harbours of Australia ships carrying coloured labour that was to take the places of Australians to be called up for military service.
– There is not a word of truth in the Minister’s bed-time story. It is a lie.
– Order! The right honorable gentleman must withdraw that remark.
– I withdraw it.
– The right honorable gentleman will not deny that there was coloured labour aboard ships in Australian harbours at the time the referendum was submitted to the people. That is common knowledge.
– I say that is a lie.
– Order! The right honorable member for North Sydney must withdraw that remark.
– I withdraw it.
– I hope to be able, probably next week, to submit some evidence to show that the right honorable gentleman has not been stating the facts to this Parliament.
– Go on. My speeches may be shorter but they are much more to the point.
– A mere denial of what I say does not dispose of my statement.
– Not a denial by you.
– The word of the right honorable member for North Sydney, who has been in all political parties and on all sides of politics, does not count for much in this country.
– That is a lie, too.
– The right honorable member must withdraw that statement.
– I withdraw.
– It appears as if members of the Opposition, who, with their allies the anti-Labour press, have been quoting what other honorable members have done in the past, resent very much being reminded of the many skeletons they have in their own cupboard. We want the Opposition to understand that they are doing an actual disservice to this country. In my opinion, some of them unconsciously - I can say that of some of them because they have been unconscious for years - and some of them consciously, have been guilty of fifthcolumn activities. What do they aim to do? Let us consider the right honorable member for North Sydney, who to-day is greatly incensed because of something of which I may remind him, hut which he hoped had been long forgotten. Along with the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), he was involved in an inquiry that was held in regard to the distribution of Commonwealth money - dishonorable distribution.
– It is about time these personalities ceased.
– Why does the honorable member not retire to his cesspit?
– A nice scene for a National Parliament.
– The people who are responsible for the scene that discredits this Parliament are the Leader of the Opposition and those members with him who introduced such a question at this time. They know the facts, for they have been shown secret cables, and yet they seek to injure the nation and stab the Government in the back by submitting an amendment which they know is designed for one purpose only. That purpose is not to assist the Australian war effort. There is no suggestion that Australian troops will be required to go outside this country. We have been appealing to the United States of America to send troops into this country. I ask the Leader of the Opposition why he has raised this question. The amendment means that members of Parliament who are condemned at present to be in Opposition, but who wish to cross to the Government benches, think that this is a favorable opportunity to destroy the Government. The Australian soldier does not want conscription. He declared himself against it when he had the opportunity on two occasions. He is a. volunteer.
– We already have conscription under Statutory Rule No. 77.
– There is no conscription for overseas military service, which is an entirely different matter. Although the Leader of the Opposition may refer to it as conscription, the Government, when drafting the regulations for the control of the man-power of this country, did what the previous Government would never have done. Before the restrictions were imposed, we conferred with the representatives of the workers. There was convened in Melbourne the greatest trade union congress that has ever been held in this country. The regulations were not enforced on the workers, who, however, voluntarily accepted them through that great trade union congress. They voluntarily forewent the liberties they had long cherished, and they did so because they wanted to serve the nation in its hour of need. They responded as the Australian workers have always responded. If there is any doubt in the minds of honorable members on that point, let them indicate one instance of the Australian workers being called upon to strike a blow for this nation and refusing to do it voluntarily. If members of the Opposition wanted to serve this country and to do the best thing possible for the workers and the nation, they would not at the present time be sowing the seeds of discord between Australian and overseas troops. They are sowing discord also in the minds of the American public. The Government of the United States of America has not made any demands on the Australian Government that have not been met. The American people, however, will not be fully aware of the situation, but will believe that their forces are being hampered in this country because of the failure of the Australian Government to co-operate with the American Government. America has made no complaint; there has been no suggestion of it, but, on the other hand, there has been the greatest possible measure of co-operation between our American ally and the Australian Government. This debate, reports of which will be broadcast, will tend to create an impression in the minds of the American people, whom we are anxious to influence in the direction of taking a favorable view of sending reinforcements: and equipment to Australia, that there is some doubt whether the Australian Government and the Australian people are worthy of assistance. This Government will govern. It will get the maximum war effort and do the best for this country and its allies, with whom we shall work in the closest cooperation. But there is no need for the bogy of conscription to he raised. This issue would divide the country. The trade unions, which are giving full cooperation in their war effort, would reconsider their position and some would withdraw their support. That is clearly the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the majority of honorable members will not fall into the trap laid by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), into which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) fell when he yielded to the pressure upon him to use his position in this chamber to try to destroy the Government so that the right honorable member for Kooyong might step forward once more to the centre of the stage, in the hope of soon re-occupying the position of Prime Minister. The people do not want the right honorable gentleman as Prime Minister. He, in my opinion, would be one of the most unlikely of choices. The workers in this country have not forgotten his action against the Port Kembla waterside workers, who struck work and refused to ship pig iron and other metals to Japan.
– Order ! This would have been more appropriate to the debate yesterday.
– I am always ready to accept the decision of an impartial Speaker. I used the instance of the Port Kembla strike to emphasize that there is uo need to coerce the workers into co-operation in the war effort. The Port Kembla waterside workers struck work with the highest of motives, not because they wanted more pay or better conditions, but because they refused to ship pig iron to a member of the Axis. Rut those men were coerced into shipping that metal to Japan.
The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who is striving to interject, I remember, defended the action of the Commonwealth Government in assisting in the closing of the Burma Road so that Japan could be assisted against our gallant Chinese allies. It was the anti-Labour Government which made representations to the imperial authorities for the closing of that road.
– I have never known the Minister to say anything correct.
– The right honorable gentleman would not deny that the United Australia party-Country party coalition Government was in control of this country when the .British Government decided to close the Burma Road.
-Order! The Minister for Labour and National Service must connect the closing of the Burma Road with the amendment.
– I shall do so. Had the anti-Labour Government not urged the British Government to close the Burma Road in order to hinder our gallant Chinese allies-
– Only by sending armed forces to Burma could the road have been kept open, and that is the one thing that this Government does not want to do.
– Had the anti-Labour Government not been responsible for the closing of the road, China would have obtained more adequate supplies and, no doubt, would have succeeded against the Japanese and made it unnecessary for this talk about sending troops out of Australia.
-Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.
– The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward), who has so eloquently addressed the House, has said a few things which call for some reply. First of them as they come into my mind is the question of the Burma Road. The honorable gentleman’s heart bled over what happened to the Chinese armies because the road was closed. Only by the sending of Australian troops to Burma could the road have been kept open. Since there has been some talk from the other side about an appeal to the country, I tell the Government that there can be no appeal at present unless the full truth about the present position of the Burma Road is told to the people. The same Minister, who talks so eloquently about the effect on the Chinese of the closing of the Burma Road, only this week has said that our “ gallant Chinese allies” are not to be employed on any civil work in New South Wales. Where is the consistency or the humanity of this gentleman when he says to the people in control of Chinese refugees in this country that the Chinese are not fit to tread the soil or to touch the tools of trade required to construct certain works ?
A debate of this sort calls for a few comments. We find ourselves in a strange position in this House to-day. It is a sad position. We had the spectacle last night of honorable members opposite who spoke one way and voted another, and the spectacle of a divided Opposition.
-Order ! The honorable member must not refer to the proceedings last night.
– We cannot get oil this question just by that. Wo have a divided Opposition. We have an Opposition which has proved conclusively in the last 24 hours, no matter what may be said to the contrary, that, as at present constituted, it cannot assume the responsibilities of office. That statement ought to go out to the people of Australia. The Minister for Labour and National Service has said that the Government can find out anything that goes on in our party room. The name “ Quisling “ is too kind for some of the people who were at, our meeting yesterday. “ Judas “ would be more appropriate. Throughout the war we have heard of leakages from the party rooms and from Cabinets where men have taken oaths to maintain secrecy. It is time that the Opposition took its courage in its hands and cleaned these people out.
-Order! The honorable member may not proceed further on that subject.
– I can pursue it on the adjournment, because I have a lot to say on the subject. A country at war and threatened with invasion of its own home soil and actually invaded so far as some of its territories and colonies are concerned, finds itself in a delicate position when it has division, disunity and treachery inside the very headquarters of Parliament and the Government.
I shall now get down to one or two of the things which really matter in connexion with this debate. We were told last night that the Government required total and unrestricted powers in order to wage war,” but to-day, like King Canute, endeavouring to stop the advance of the tide, the Government says, in effect, “ We have gone thus far, but we shall go no farther. We do not want that total power. We want everything but that”. No country with an ounce of self-respect in its makeup can call upon conscripted soldiers from other parts of the world to come to its assistance without first providing for the conscription of its own manhood. During the last few months many people in this country have blamed Great Britain, quite wrongly, because British forces have not been disposed to their liking. Apparently, these people are prepared to have British naval, army and air conscripts sent to the limits of the’ earth, and beyond this planet, if possible. Already we have American conscripts in this country, and an endeavour has been made by the Attorney-General (Di. Evatt) to induce Canadians to come to the assistance of their friends in the south Pacific; but apparently those individuals who cry out for help from the conscripted soldiers of other countries are not prepared to apply similar conditions in their own country. That is a paltry and contemptible attitude. The whining, wingeing and squealing by some Australians - including leading members of the Government - over the air and through the press, is deplorable, and we, who have one of the proudest fighting records of any small nation, arc being held up to ridicule and contempt. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) referred to an incident which occurred at Port Kembla some time ago, when wharf labourers refused to load pig iron destined for Japan. I ask honorable members whether it is any worse to send pig iron to Japan than to send wool to clothe Japanese troops? But not one member of the present Government raised any objection to the sale of wool to Japan. The Minister also said that at the time when the dispute in regard, to the loading of pig iron took place, Japan was actually a member of the Axis, and for that reason the action taken by the Port Kembla wharf labourers was justified. I shall read to honorable members opposite a resolution which was carried by a Labour party conference 6n the 24th March, .1940, by 195 votes to 88-
The Labour party has always been opposed to imperialistic wars, and to-day we demand that every energy should be utilized to bring about the establishment of peace at the earliest opportunity. We declare that the Australian people have nothing to gain from the continuance of the war. The management of the war in the hands of the anti-Labour Menzies Government in association with the anti-Labour Chamberlain Government means that the war is being pursued in the interests of big finance and monopolists. Conference is opposed to Australian participation in overseas conflict. The Labour party unhesitatingly demands that’ no Australian troops he permitted to leave Australia.
Apparently, the very party whose supporters caused a dispute, at Port Kembla over the loading of pig iron for Japan, which was then an Axis partner, was quite prepared to make peace with the Axis, the same Axis against which some Ministers at least now declare the Labour party’s intention of waging an unending and everlasting war as long as it lias a man, ship or plane to send against, us. Total war can be followed only by total victory. There can be no mediation or pacification with enemies such as those with whom we are now confronted, and in order to carry this total war to a successful conclusion, our troops must go to enemy territory; we must organize our Navy, Army and Air Force to fight the enemy wherever he is to be found. It is useless for the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) to say that we have sufficient Australian Imperial Force troops in Australia to send overseas should the occasion arise. The Minister knows perfectly well - probably better than I do - just what is the strength of the Japanese forces which have made this onslaught into the South Pacific and Burma, and are threatening South Africa, Madagascar, and every bit of allied territory from Hawaii to the Cape of Good Hope. An examination of the map shows the two great offensive arcs which the Japanese have organized from Burma to the Marshall Islands, the Gilbert Islands and the Caroline Islands, and no man in his right senses can suggest that we have enough men in the Australian Imperial Force to meet the great demands which will be made upon us. It is true that American troops arc coming here, but for what purpose? They are coming here not to help the Australian nation as such, but because Australia is the most suitable base from which an offensive can be launched, and that offensive if it is to be at all successful, must bc carried right to the point where the Japanese offensive started.
I should like to say a word on the subject of national unity. In this chamber to-day we are united only on the things that do not matter; our task is to achieve unity on the things that really do matter. I have spoken before of the impossible position in which we are placed owing to that spirit of compromise which has been manifest in thi? Parliament for far too long, and with which 1 do .not agree. If this debate serves only to clean up the Advisory War Council it will have been worthwhile. After what has been said by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) and by Opposition speakers this afternoon, neither side can, with honour, maintain its membership of that useless body. We must get down to the position in which the Government will govern aud the Opposition will take its stand in accordance with its principles. There is much that’ I could say upon this subject. There is a good deal that I have not said, and about which I feel very strongly, but I do say that we have a very important and inescapable responsibility if we are sincere in the stand we have taken, in the promises we have made, and in the contacts that we have established with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada, to which we have appealed for help, with New Zealand, which looks to us for some thi ug, with South Africa, and with the Dutch nation, whose women and children are already under the heel of the Japanese. If this country is of any colour other than yellow, we must insist on Australian troops being used wherever they may be required, until victory has been won. With less than that no self-respecting Australian can be satisfied; for more nobody asks.
.- The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) made a statement on the war situation for the information of honorable members, and to the right honorable gentleman’s motion “ That the paper be printed “ the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) has moved an amendment, the effect of which is to ask Parliament to approve the principle of conscription for overseas service. So far, thedebate has been upon the amendment, whilst the statement on the general war situation has been completely ignored. If a vote be taken upon the amendment, undoubtedly the House will be asked immediately afterwards to vote on the original question, and there will be no further opportunity granted to debate the various phases of the war situation as outlined by the Prime Minister. That is most unfortunate, because honorable members have little opportunity to discuss what is, after all, the most important matter that could come to the notice of the Parliament at this critical period. Members are told very littleby this Government - they were told less by previous governments - about the changes in the war situation. Recently, a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held in Melbourne to discuss, among other things, uniform taxation. After internal politics had been disposed of, a meeting was arranged at which the Premiers were addressed by such important persons as the Prime Minister, General MacArthur, CommanderinChief of the south-west Pacific area; General Sir Thomas Blarney, CommanderinChief Australian Military Forces and Commander of the Allied Land Forces in that area; Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Royle, Major-General R. K. Sutherland, Chief of Staff to General MacArthur ; Lieutenant-General Sturdee, Chief of Staff, General Head-quarters; and Air Vice-Marshall W. D. Bostock, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff.
State Premiers have no constitutional right to be addressed, advised or consulted upon matters concerning the defence of this country, but they were given the fullest information on the war situation direct from the mouths of the military advisers to the Commonwealth. Although they are an estimable body of men - I am personally friendly with most of them - they have no right to be so addressed whilst members of Parliament, who have a constitutional responsibility to the nation, are ignored. We have received no information of a worthwhile character from the Ministers and, as a Parliament, we have not been given the opportunity of hearing General MacArthur or any other high military, naval or air force authority. All that the Parliament is told is contained in a typewritten document that has been prepared for the information of the House; it is read to us, and then we are invited to ask a few questions. As a representative of the people I protest against that practice. Any information I have received in recent times on the war situation has generally been passed on to me by pressmen who, by the very nature of their calling, are in closer touch with the Ministers than are most honorable members. I hope that the Government will, in the near future, alter the existing practice; but while it continues to exist I shall, with justification, continue to protest.
I am afraid that the debate on the amendment may have the effect of further inflaming the minds of parents of youths, aged eighteen years, who are already at operational stations throughout the country without having received any previous military training. There is agitation in the minds of many parents because the instruction that the Minister said he had issued has in most cases been ignored. I have received a number of letters and press cuttings from people who desire that their protest should be beard in opposition to the policy of the Government of sending youths direct to battle stations. The first press cutting is from the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of the 20th March. It reads -
page 843
As a result of a decision by the War Advisory Council, youths of eighteen are to be removed from battle stations.
The decision affects youths of this age who have been sent to advanced posts in the near north.
No time was lost by the military authorities in carrying the Government’s instruction into effect. It was stated yesterday that one youth was taken front a troop train which was on its way to another State.
In recent months parents have complained that their sons had been sent to battle stations after completing only a few weeks of military training.
It is understood that the Federal Government is also considering a proposal to give youths up to twenty more intensive training in the instruction depots before they are given active duty.
That paragraph was followed the next day by a sub-leader in the same newspaper in the following terms: -
page 844
Not only the parents of those affected, but public opinion generally will endorse the decision of the War Advisory Council to remove youths of eighteen from battle stations. These youngsters are in no way fitted to stand the strain of front-line warfare and protests against the sending of them to advanced posts are tinged with justifiable bitterness when militiamen in the twenties are still serving their country in office chairs by day and returning to their homes at night.
While in the Philippines, General MacArthur made a scientific survey of his Japanese prisoners and has reported that their average age was 23 with the eldest 31, and they had had eighteen months’ military service. There must be noquestion of sending mere youths todo battle with soldiers of this calibre. The place for the under twenties is in depots to undergo intensive training until they reach manhood.
I ask the Minister for the Army to tell the Parliament how many youths up to the age of twenty years have, in accordance with his instructions, been brought back from Port Moresby and Darwin; and how many youths aged eighteen years to nineteen years, details of whose cases have already been furnished, are still at operational stations to the west and north of the continent. Many parents are concerned because their young sons, in addition to being sent to operational stations, irrespective of the decision reached on the amendment we are debating, may at some future date be sent to the islands north of Australia when offensive action is taken.
If there be any merit in the amendment - and I claim that it has no merit - surely this is not the time to draw comparisons between conscripted American troops and non-conscripted Australians. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) painted a lurid picture of how the people in America would probably say that their sons were being sent away from home to fight for a country that refused to fight for itself. What a fine contribution the honorable member has made to the case for isolation that has arisen in the United States of America, a case that has been built up overmanyyears by stupid talk everywhere in the British Commonwealth of Nations about war debts owing to the United States of America by Great Britain. Continual talk about the lack of an all-in Australian war effort has helped to promote that growth of illfeeling in the United States of America, and has assisted those who claim that we do not appreciate the efforts of that country on our behalf. A considerable body of public opinion in that country had to be worn down by President Roosevelt before the United States of America would agree to the lease-lend legislation, and, subsequently, to agree to an active participation in the war. If the Japanese had not attacked the United States of America, that nation would probably not yet have entered the war and we should probably not be receiving that active assistance which we are now receiving. Those who wish to serve the best interests of Australia should avoid the comparisons which have been made to-day and should avoid trying to exacerbate American public opinion just as they should avoid inflaming Australian public opinion. I remind honorable members opposite that no Americans under the age of 21 years are conscripted, but if the proposal implicit in the amendment now before the House were accepted by Parliament and acted upon by the Government, eighteen year-old Australians who have no votes would be liable to conscription for overseas service.
– Of course everything is a matter of administration. If the House agreed to the principle of compulsory overseas service, youths of eighteen would be sent overseas as well as being compelled to give military service at home.
– Not at all.
– Youths of eighteen are liable for home defence service. If they were liable for service at home there would be nothing to prevent them from being sent overseas. That is something that the military authorities would decide.
– The Government would decide.
– I have not much faith in governments, even Labour governments, when pressure is brought to bear upon them by the military machine. [ am not casting reflections upon the High Command. I know, from my own experience of handling justifiable claims for exemption from military service, how certain military gentlemen act. When one talks to a general one usually finds him to be a reasonable man who has no airs and graces and discusses a subject quite intelligently. But when one comes down to the rank of colonel one begins to sense the importance that some people attach to their rank, and when one reaches captains and lieutenants one finds that one is really talking to military gentlemen who have no doubts about what ought to be done with politicians who interfere in their domain. They have no hesitation, in many cases, about telling privates, who dare to mention the names of members of Parliament, what they think about them and the set-up of Parliament generally.
– Perhaps they have listened to the politicians in this House.
– I have never had any difficulty in talking with a majorgeneral, and I include the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) in that statement.
Honorable members opposite have overlooked one vital point. There are 7,000,000 people in Australia, which is an area almost as great as the United States of America. There are 130,000,000 people in the United States of America. If the whole of the manhood of this country were to be conscripted and sent overseas, the contribution in point of numbers would not be very great. It would not be sufficient to determine the issue of a. major battle in the Pacific, the Atlantic or elsewhere, but if Australia were denuded of its man-power, the future of the nation would be dark indeed. It will be dark enough, even if we win the war. Europe may be quiet in another 25 years, but while Australia remains an outpost of white civilization and insists upon the maintenance of the White Australia policy and while we have very few people in this country, we shall naturally excite the avarice and covetousness of our coloured neighbours to the north.
– We may even excite their just indignation.
– It might seem to them that they have cause for just indignation at our exclusive policy. If we are to remain a white race, we can do nothing else but maintain the White Australia policy. If we cannot get a population of 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 people in this country within a generation or so by means of immigration and an increase of the birthrate, the day of the white race in Australia will be finished. Many white people might continue to live here for another generation or so but afterwards there would no longer be a white Australia.
– But the honorable member’s party objects to the immigration of Europeans.
– No sensible man could honestly object to the immigration of white people under proper conditions and provided that they were not sent here in order to relieve their native countries of an unemployment problem. If the problems of industrial development and migration are related, I would welcome the arrival in Australia of many hundreds of thousands of white people from the other side of the world.
– What about water conservation?
– The success of an immigration policy would depend upon the best statesmanship of which we were capable in order to make adequate provision, by means of water conservation and other developmental works, to afford opportunities to the new citizens to live in the standards of decency that we desire to maintain. I hope that all honorable members will endeavour to ensure that the people of Europe, who will be tired of two blood baths in one generation, shall have ample opportunity to come to this country and settle after the war. When I see the splendid specimens of American manhood walking the streets of Australian cities and recollect that America has been, for more than a generation, a melting pot for European nations, I am satisfied with the result of the amalgamation. We should lose nothing by adopting a similar policy. It would be far better for us to have in Australia 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 people of 100 per cent. white extraction than to continue the narrow policy of having a population of 7,000,000 people who are 98 per cent. British.
– And commit national suicide.
– Yes. There will be no future for Australia unless it has a population prepared to defend it when a militarised Asia, not a militarised Japan, moves south at a time when Europe will probably have settled its many quarrels and when America may be disinclined to give us any further assistance.
There are grounds for believing that we have already called up for military training in this country many more thousands of young men than we can provide with proper equipment. It would have been far better to have left a number of these men in the farming districts in order to harvest the crops. I believe that the man-power officers in our country districts are rendering a grave disservice to the nation by sending into camp every man whom they consider to be physically lit for training. I should like to see our man-power regulations scrapped and jurisdiction over exemption claims handed back to the military authorities. Militaryofficers at least mete out a rough sort of justice, but man-power officers give only legal interpretations of regulations in which there is no humanity and no justice. In many cases so many misfits have been placed in positions of authority that grave abuses of power are committed, and injustices are perpetrated upon families and individuals. What I have said about the Department of Labour and National Service is equally true of the Department of War Organization of Industry. That department organizes nothing and disorganizes everything.
It was most unfortunate that a broadcast was made over the national and commercial radio networks earlier this month which gave rise to the suspicion that the Government was toying with the subject of conscription for overseas service. It was a perfectly legitimate deduction to make from the broadcast that there was a feeling in higher government circles that, at some time or another, when we moved north on the offensive, Australian manhood should be conscripted for overseas service. Next day the press published a statement in almost identical terms. The subject-matter of both the broadcast and the press reports could not have been confused. The report could not have been a press and radio conspiracy. It emanated, in my opinion, from a Minister, or from a high ministerial attendant. I am certain that the report was not a concoction. It was most unfortunate that it should have been published. I hope that we shall not hear any more statements of the kind.I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden) incongruously describe the government spokesman mentioned in the report this morning as “ an overworked phantom of the night “. I asked the right honorable gentleman, first, by interjection, whether hehad ever seen a phantom of the night, and, secondly, whether he had ever seen an overworked phantom, but I did not get a reply.
Finally, I remind honorable members that no evidence has been submitted today to the effect that, the high military command has asked for the conscription of the man-power of this countryfor overseas service. I believe that they feel that they have a full time job in training, for the defence of this country, the men that they already have available for this purpose. It will be a considerable time before we are in a position to use the man-power at our command to take the offensive. If I am cognizant of anything at all, it is that it will also be a considerable time before we shall be able to equip our troops in such a wayas to enable them to launch an attack against a wellequipped and well-trained and disciplined enemy.
Question put -
That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. (Mr.fadden’samendment)standpartofthe question.
The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. W. M.Nairn.)
AYES: 31
NOES: 21
Majority . . 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
page 847
Motion (by Mr. Curtin) agreed to -
That the House, at its rising, adjourn to
Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.
page 847
Colour Patches - National Security Regulations: Conscientious Objectors - Salt Supplies - Australian Capital Territory: Police Force: abattoirs-MilitaryCallUp - Production of Foodstuffs - Discharged Soldiers’ Pay.
Motion (by Mr. Curtin) proposed -
That the House do now adjourn.
.- My attention has been drawn to-day to a serious matter which should receive immediately the personal attention of the
Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde). Otherwise serious dissatisfaction is likely to occur in our fighting services. I have been advised that there is evidence of a desire on the part of the Government to take away the outward and visible signs of Australian Imperial Force enlistment in Australia. In other words, a direct effort is to be made, so I am informed, to submerge the identity of the Australian Imperial Force. I refer to a complaint in regard to the 17 th Field Regiment - an artillery regiment - in Queensland. Men belonging to this regiment have been issued with their colours, but the grey background in colour patches which is the distinguishing mark of the Australian Imperial Force has been removed. This has caused grave disaffection in the regiment, and I understand that a meeting of protest has been held. The men regard what has been done as political interference, and consider that the Government is setting out to sink the identity of those who have joined up with the Australian Imperial Force in defence of Australia.
– I assure the honorable gentleman that there has not been any political interference. There has not been any direction or instruction by me in the matter.
– There is another disturbing fact. I am given to understand that, although 98 per cent. of the men in this particular regiment are members of the Australian Imperial Force, and that the only membersof the Militia are several officers, the regiment is recorded as a Militia regiment. I ask the Minister to cause investigations to be made, and to do justice to these men who enlisted for service in the Australian Imperial Force.
– If any decision was made - I am not aware of one, but I shall make inquiries in order to establish the facts - it was a military and not a political decision as suggested. No such action was taken by me as Minister.
– The men seriously resent the removal of that portion of the colour patch which indicates that they arc members of the Australian Imperial Force. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give the matter his personal attention.
– -I shall have the matter inquired into, and furnish a reply to the honorable gentleman within a few days.
.- During the current week, as the result of a resolution passed in the Senate, certain provisions were deleted from the National Security (Conscientious Objectors) Regulations. The effect of their deletion was, in substance, to destroy those regulations, because there is now no provision for the hearing of either an original application by an objector or an appeal by him against the dismissal of such an application. But the whole of the regulations have not been repealed, and so long as they remain unrepealed conscientious objectors will be prevented from taking advantage of the protection afforded by the Defence Act to objectors to combatant service. Section 61 and subsequent sections of that act provide that any person who objects to render combatant service but is willing to render non-combatant service may establish his objection before a court, and shall have the right of appeal against an adverse decision. Those sections of the Defence Act are suspended while the National Security Regulations continue. in force. The regulations continue in force in name, but not in substance, because those of them which enabled a conscientious objector to establish a claim or to appeal if his claim were rejected, are gone. It would appear to be very difficult for the Government to include in the regulations the equivalent of these provisions, by virtue of the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act. But the Government should nevertheless consider the matter, because it is of no use to allow the regulations to remain nominally in force when their whole substance is gone and conscientious objectors are prevented from availing themselves of the provisions of the Defence Act. Some conscientious objectors who have objected to perform combatant service but have been willing to perform non-combatant service have nevertheless been ordered to perform combatant service. So long as these regulations remain in force, such persons cannot avail themselves of the protection afforded by the Defence Act. I hope that the appropriate Minister will consider the whole subject from every point of view; because it is a calamity that regulations which took such a long time to become enacted should have been destroyed in the Senate without a division having been taken on the motion for their disallowance. I am astonished that when these regulations were challenged the motion challenging them, the carrying of which has destroyed them, should have been allowed’ to pass on the voices. 1 have received a letter from Golden Mayfair Proprietary Limited, wholesale and retail provision merchants, who have a number of grocery stores in my electorate and serve 4,000 customers a week. The letter was sent to me by express delivery, and informed me that this firm is unable to supply any of its customers with salt. The position seems to be most curious, especially as I understand that a large quantity of salt has been harvested in Geelong. I trust that the appropriate Minister will look into the matter.
– I have previously spoken, in appeal rather than in protest, against the proposed establishment of abattoirs at Canberra. In answer to a question that I asked yesterday, I was informed by the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) that the construction of these abattoirs was approved by the Public Works Committee. That body, however, recommended an expenditure of only £35,000, and by a bare majority of its members. Since then, much water has run under the bridge. The financial position of Australia has completely altered. It seems to me almost a sin that, at a time like the present, the Government should provide so much money for the erection of these works. I know that some persons believe that my opposition to them is dictated by the fact that there are abattoirs in my electorate. If the history of the matter be studied, it wilL be found that I was opposed to the construction of these works when I was Minister for the Interior, and that abattoirs had not then been established in Nimmitabel. This would have been a waste of public money when circumstances were much better than they are to-day. The Treasurer informed me yesterday that the amount of the lowest tender was approximately £43,000. That tenderer has not been signed up, and it is now proposed to accept an even higher tender. If that be done, it will be a public scandal. In my electorate, and I dare say in other electorates, there are many persons who have been very hard hit by the building regulations of the Government. I can call to mind a number of men who sought authority to expend a few hundred pounds in order that they might be enabled to carry on their businesses, and the right to do so was denied to them. Yet, in Canberra, the Government proposes to erect works of this description, which can be made a success only if they supply meat to outside areas. They will have to go to Queanbeyan to sell meat; yet, because of certain regulations, Queanbeyan is not entitled to return the compliment by selling its meat in Canberra. At a period when the people are heavily burdened with almost unbearable taxation, and the Government stresses the necessity for an all-in war effort, it is proposed to expend over £40,000 in the construction of works that are absolutely unnecessary, merely to suit the whim of some departmental officials. When the matter came before the Public Works Committee, the estimated cost was given at £55,000. The committee would not listen to a proposal for the expenditure of such an amount and wrote it down to £35,000. If the Minister has the power to override its recommendation, what is the use of having the committee inform this House that it considers that £35,000 should be the limit of expenditure ? By ignoring its report, and expending a considerably greater sum than it recommended, the Government is making a laughing stock of the committee. I doubt whether such an expenditure as is proposed would receive the approval of the AuditorGeneral. I opposed the building of abattoirs for Canberra because I regarded the project as unnecessary. There is a serious lack of hotels and housing accommodation in this capital city, and I find it hard to understand why the Treasurer is prepared to expend over £40,000 on the erection of abattoirs that are totally unnecessary when he is also assuring the people that all money that can be secured is necessary for the successful prosecution of the war.
.- I should like the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Beasley) to indicate whether he has given any consideration to my request made two days ago that an investigation should be made into certain matters affecting the administration of the police force in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not wish to reflect on the officer in charge of the force, Colonel Jones, with whom I have enjoyed a personal friendship for many years. I had indicated that if the Minister intended to hold a public inquiry, evidence would be readily forthcoming. As rumours have persisted for many months with regard to certain happenings in this Territory, I hope that the Minister will announce whether an inquiry is to be held.
– The Government has indicated that a select committee of the Cabinet has been appointed to consider the manpower problem in regard to the production of foodstuffs, and I desire to know whether anything can be done to expedite inquiries into the hardships of widows and invalid fathers whose sons have been called up for military service, thus placing the parents in a most awkward position with regard to the harvesting of their crops. This matter should be looked into in the light of the necessity for carrying on those industries which are of value to the war effort.
I also bring to the notice of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde), the case of a soldier who was dismissed because of physical disability. The reply to my representations indicate that whilst the soldier claimed payment for service in camp from the 2nd September to the 30th November, he has received pay at the rate of 8s. a day only to the 31st October. It seems to me that a soldier suffering from an admitted disability due to life in a military camp and who still has a month’s pay due to him should receive that amount. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter.
– The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) referred to the disallowance by the Senate of a regulation relating to conscientious objectors. The department has noted the action of that chamber in connexion with this matter and realizes the necessity for an adjustment. As this matter calls for consideration, in view of the effect of the Acts Interpretation Act with regard to the course that it is necessary to take, I should like the honorable member to know that the matter is under consideration. The subject of salt, which affects the Department of Supply, is a problem that arises owing to a demand made by the New Zealand Government for 26,000 tons of salt due to the acute shortage existing in that dominion. The Government was particularly anxious to assist New Zealand in this regard, and the position there affected the salt position in Australia to some extent, although I was unaware that it affected it so much as was suggested by the honorable member. We had a problem later in connexion with man-power, because salt has to be harvested within the salt season. I took steps to secure man-power for the purpose of trying to catch the season in time, but the control of the industry has not been altogether satisfactory. Those in charge have not availed themselves of the time at their disposal to gather in the quantity of salt that they would ordinarily have collected. The New Zealand situation upset our plans and we had to cut down supplies to some extent. The matter will have my immediate attention.
Following on the statement by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), on the motion for the adjournment of the House on Wednesday, the Solicitor-General has called for a report to be submitted on the points that he has raised regarding the Police Force in the Australian Capital Territory. The honorable member will appreciate that it is necessary to obtain a report at least as a preliminary to whatever other action the Government may consider necessary. When it comes to hand, the Government will consider what steps shall be taken.
– The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) has referred to the withdrawal of the grey background of colour patches from certain men who enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force. This was not done as the result of political interference, ae insinuated, but evidently is the result of a decision reached at military headquarters. I shall make an inquiry regarding the matter and furnish the honorable member with a reply.
Regarding the call-up of young men on farms in Queensland, and the dire hardship of some of the elderly parents who are left to work their farms unaided, I have the greatest sympathy for the people on the land to whom the honorable member for Wide Ray (Mr. Bernard Corser) has referred, because many persons in similar circumstances are to be found in my own electorate. This is not an easy problem to solve. The Government is faced with the necessity for meeting the wishes of its military advisers, who have asked for a gradual increase of the Army necessary to defend Australia, and a great demand has been made upon the manpower required for munitions and other industries, including those manufacturing foodstuffs for the fighting forces. As stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) today, the whole subject is receiving close attention, and I hope that it will be brought before the War Cabinet early next week. A committee of experts has been investigating it, and it is to he considered by a special committee of the Cabinet. We are most anxious to meet the demands of the primary producers, who are doing very important work in providing foodstuffs for our forces. However, it is impossible to give an assurance that we shall be able to meet the demands of the services and the munitions factories, and also allow men out of camp to carry on these various undertakings. Already, during the harvest season, 27,000 men were exempt from military service to enable the harvest to be gathered. In addition, others were released for the harvesting of salt. It is very difficult for the Government to meet all these demands, but it is doing its best.
The protest of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Perkins) regarding what he calls the unnecessary expenditure of £42,000 on the erection of new abattoirs at Canberra will be referred to the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings). I am not myself familiar with the position, but I have no doubt that the Minister for the Interior has considered the report of the Public Works Committee, and that he will give due consideration to the honorable member’s protest.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
page 851
n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
Mr.Curtin. - The information is being obtained and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as early as possible. australiannationalanthem.
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
n. - Whilst theGovernment is sympathetic towards any proposal which aims at the encouragement of national art and music it is not considered that the present period is opportune to conduct a competition with a view to the selection of an Australian National Anthem.
n asked the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -
– The whole question of establishment of the aluminium industry in Australia is governed entirely by our ability to import essential plant and equipment from abroad. Negotiations with the object of securing this plant and equipment have now been going on for some time and are continuing. It is not possible at present to forecast what the outcome may be, but the honorable member can be assured that the Government will be unremitting in its efforts to establish the industry and will explore all possible means of achieving this end.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 May 1942, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1942/19420501_reps_16_170/>.