House of Representatives
19 March 1964

25th Parliament · 1st Session

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) look the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 653




– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask the right honorable gentleman whether he is prepared to issue an immediate direction to the Chiefs of Staffs of the three fighting services that all equipment for the safety of personnel in normal or emergency circumstances should forthwith be inspected to ensure that it is fully operational, ready to hand and in normal serviceable order. Will he direct that any deficiencies found in the inspection should be made good as a matter of highest priority?

Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I have no doubt whatever that these are standing and standard orders in the services. I see no occasion to repeat them. If anybody has been tempted to forget about them, I think he might have thought of them in the last day or two.

page 653




– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he has seen a report in the Hobart “ Mercury “ of a statement by a- member of the Tasmanian Upper House criticising the chairman of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission for holding interests in the Fleetways organization and suggesting that these interests conflict with his responsibilities to the Australian National Line. Is there any foundation for the criticism, and does the Minister propose to take any action in the matter?

Minister for Shipping and Transport · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr. Speaker, I have seen the statement to which the honorable member refers and I say that it is malicious, miserable and quite false in its implications. The chairman of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is one of five Commissioners who represent a balanced diversity of commercial and government interests. At the time of his appointment to the post be made a full disclosure of his interests and I am satisfied that they in no way con flict with his duty as chairman of the commission, nor have they affected his judgment in its running. His service to Australian coastal shipping hardly needs to be mentioned in this House, particularly his service for the benefit of Tasmania. This particular attack can be seen in its proper perspective when one realizes that it arises out of a difference of view as to whether the “Empress of Australia” should call at Hobart three times a month or an as yet unspecified number of times. I repeat that I believe it is a completely malicious attack.

page 653




– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation. Has the honorable gentleman seen a report published in January of this year that eleven top American scientists unanimously have found that cigarette smoking is a definite cause of lung cancer and a principal cause of coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis and emphysema and other cardiovascular diseases? Has any study of the report been made by the Repatriation Department? If not, is it intended to have the report examined? Is it a fact that the armed forces and the Red Cross issued rations of tobacco to servicemen on active service? If so, would that not obligate the Repatriation Department automatically to accept cancer and heart disease as warcaused disabilities, provided that the American report is correct?

Minister for Repatriation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the last part of the honorable member’s question is, “ No “. I have certainly seen the report, and it has been studied by the medical officers of my department. Inasmuch as it concerns my department, investigations have been carried out and some information in relation to the matter will be available in the near future. However, I think it is principally a matter which concerns my colleague, the Minister for Health. I will refer the question to him for consideration and will have prepared a reply from him in relation to matters which concern his department.

page 653




– I wish to ask the Minister for External Affairs a question.

It relates to a Miss J. Wilson, who has apparently been arrested in Prague on the charge that she assisted somebody to exercise a natural right to escape from the Soviet zone and cross the iron curtain. Has the Minister any knowledge of these matters, and can a statement in regard to them be made to the House?

Minister for External Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We have been informed that a Miss Janice Wilson, a young Australian citizen, has been arrested in Bratislava on a charge of attempting to smuggle a Czechoslovakian citizen across the border. The young lady was apparently crossing the border from Vienna with an English companion at the time. We have approached the British Embassy in Prague to ascertain the position and also to see that the consul offers assistance to Miss Wilson. I understand the consul has now been given permission by the Czech authorities to visit the young lady in prison in Bratislava. I have no further details, but I have asked the British Embassy to keep us informed and to see that Miss Wilson has all the assistance she needs to prosecute her defence against the charge. We have informed Miss Wilson’s father of the situation - a fact for which, I understand, he is grateful.

page 654



Mr J R Fraser:

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Interior. Doeshe know that on 3rd October, 1961 the then Minister for Health, in reply to a question asked by me, said it was unlikely that any programme of fluoridation would be put into effect in the Australian Capital Territory without an expression of opinion from the inhabitants of the Territory first being obtained? As the people of the Australian Capital Territory have no representative form of local government, does he consider that they should be given opportunity, by way of referendum, to say whether or not they want fluoride added to their water supply?

Minister for the Interior · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I should like to tell the honorable member - and I am sure he knows - that this matter was brought up before the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council on a number of occasions. This council includes elected representatives who advise my department of what they want as far as Canberra is concerned. On two occasions the Advisory Council requested my predecessor to introduce fluoridation of water in Canberra. After the second request, and after the Minister had thoroughly examined the question, particularly from the health aspect, the Minister decided that Canberra’s water supply should be fluoridated. I do not think it is necessary to hold a referendum on this matter. I think the Advisory Council is fairly representative of the people of Canberra. However I will give the matter consideration.

page 654




– I wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Has the Minister’s attention been directed to a statement by Professor Donald, retiring president of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, that deposits of rock phosphate on Nauru, Ocean and Christmas Islands will be exhausted in about 25 years, or even before, and that, consequently, the price of superphosphate in Australia is likely to increase by at least 30 per cent, or even a great deal more? In view of this statement, I ask: What steps are being taken to promote the search for phosphate deposits within Australia?

Minister for Housing · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Government is fully seised of the tremendous importance of phosphate to the great Australian primary industries and consequently to the prosperity and well-being of the whole Australian nation. There are still enormous deposits of phosphate on the islands mentioned, and these deposits will not be exhausted for a great many years. However, the Government deems it prudent to discover and assess what supplies of phosphate exist in Australia. The precise steps that should be taken, and the best way of making a survey are art present under active consideration. As soon as the precise steps to be taken have been determined, an announcement will be made.

page 654




– I wish to ask the PostmasterGenera] a question. He will recall that recently I asked him a question about the use by postmen of suitable repellents to prevent attacks by savage dogs. I now ask:. Has the honorable gentleman any. further information to give to the House on this matter?

Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Our inquires into this matter are not yet complete. We are testing a repellent known as “ Halt “ that has been adopted in the United States of America. I do not know whether dogs understand the English language sufficiently to know what “Halt” means. This repellent is sprayed on a dog at the moment prior to attack. We in Australia are not sure that this is the most effective method of preventing dog attacks. In fact, we are experimenting with a compound that could perhaps be sprayed on a postman’s bicycle or his mailbag, dogs being repelled by the presence of the substance on the bicycle or the bag rather than by being sprayed at the moment before attack.

page 655




– I ask the Minister for External Affairs this question: Will he assure the House that we have definite treaty arrangements with the United States of America for mutual support in the event of Australia being committed to action in accordance with public announcements that have been made concerning Australia’s assurances of support for Malaysia? Has the new attitude of France altered any safeguards under the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty and, if so, in what respects?


– In various statements in this House I have pointed out the strength of the Anzus Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America, which covers this country not only in the event of Australia itself being attacked but also in the event of our troops, naval vessels or service aircraft being under attack in any part of the Pacific area. I would have thought that those statements would answer the first part of the question. With respect to the attitude of France towards the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, I have already explored to some extent with the French the impact, if any, of President de Gaulle’s statement on the relations of the French with us in Seato. I am assured that the President’s statements do not indicate any change in the relations between France and ourselves in Seato.

page 655




– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether it is a fact that under the proposed redistribution of electoral boundaries there will be a wide margin between the quotas in metropolitan and country electorates. Is it also a fact that the policy of the Australian Country Party is that the acres of an electorate are more important than people? If this is not a fact, what action will be taken to include in electorates, particularly metropolitan electorates, provision for the 240,000 migrants who have not applied for naturalization but who require and take advantage of the services of their parliamentary representatives?


– I would like to reply to the honorable member by saying that, if he is concerned about the migrants in his electorate who are not naturalized, he should get out and encourage them to become naturalized and so qualify for a vote.

page 655




– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. It is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Watson. In asking this question I seek in a way to accept some responsibility for the many thousands of dog owners in Australia. On their behalf and on behalf of their animals I ask the Postmaster-General whether the spray he mentioned is harmful to dogs which may be a bit slow in getting out of the way. If it is, will the department accept responsibility for any harm caused by it or any loss of valuable animals? I could perhaps give him an old gypsy method which, whilst ensuring that a dog will not bite, may have other effects.


– I think it could be accepted that the Post Office is not likely to use a repellent that would be harmful to dogs. At the same time, I feel that the public could co-operate in this matter by restraining their dogs and perhaps keeping them inside their own premises rather than allowing them to get out to make attacks on postmen.

page 655




– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Treasurer, by directing his attention to the report of the Royal College of Physicians in London in 1962 on the association between smoking and lung cancer, which report was later supported by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and, as the honorable member for Shortland said, by the report of the United States Surgeon-General of January of this year. Is it a fact that the Minister for Health, Senator Wade, said that the Government has no power to control the advertising of cigarettes? Is it a fact that this is false, that the Government has the power to control advertising by using the taxation laws? As a safeguard for the future health of our youth, will the Treasurer prevent the indiscriminate advertising of cigarettes by making the cost of such advertising a non-deductible item for taxation purposes? If this does not prove to be a deterrent, will the Treasurer place a super-tax on all such advertising?


– I certainly will not attempt to argue a matter of this complexity and this character in giving an answer at question time. As I understand the purpose of question time, it is to enable members to elicit information from Ministers on matters within their administration and not to promote debate on highly contentious questions of policy. The only comment I permit myself on this matter is that there are many human activities which, if carried to excess, can lead to grievous bodily or mental harm. A lot of attention is currently being concentrated on the effects of the immoderate use of tobacco. We can think of other activities that could be under attack if moderation is not practised. The honorable gentleman wants special action taken in relation to the advertising of tobacco. Would he carry this further and include the advertising of alcohol, for example, or addiction to the use of poker machines in New South Wales? There is no end to it.

page 656




– In the course of his recent statement on international affairs the Minister for External Affairs said that he intended shortly to visit certain European countries. Will he tell the House what capitals he proposes to visit?


– In my speech last week on international affairs I said that I proposed to visit Europe shortly. I pointed out to the House that I thought there was a need to present Australia to European people and statesmen and that benefit would accrue to Australia from such a visit at this time. My itinerary has not been finally settled. It still needs a great deal of arrangement but I think I can say that in addition to visiting London I hope to visit Paris, Bonn, Moscow and on my way home, Delhi.

page 656




– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Has the Minister’s attention been directed to a press report containing a statement attributed to Mr. Evans, the Queensland Minister for Mines, in which it is alleged that the Shell Company of Australia Limited is attempting to tie up permanently Australian produced crude oil, thereby threatening the Australian oil exploration programme? Has the Minister any information available that would indicate that the Shell Company is engaged in any action detrimental to the Australian oil industry? If so, what does the Government intend to do in the matter?


– My attention has not been directed to the statement referred to and, consequently, I cannot comment on it. I have no evidence whatsoever that the Shell Company has in mind any plan of the kind referred to. However, I will convey the honorable member’s question to my colleague in another place, and if I can add anything to my present answer I will let the honorable member know.

page 656



Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Does the Minister for Labour and National Service consider that there will be any shortage of work opportunities for men in Queensland this year, next year and in the future? Does he consider that there are any substantial foundations for the fears that have been expressed concerning a shortage of manpower for the sugar-cane crushing activities, bearing in mind that many men now engaged in expanding mill activities will seek employment in the fields later in the year?

Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I recently had a survey taken out of the employment position in Queensland because it was thought that due to the rapid industrial growth of the State we would experience wide-spread labour shortages this year. I also had a survey made of the sugar industry itself, in relation to both the cane fields and the mills. We found that commencing, I think, early in May we would need to recruit between 17,000 and 18,000 workers for cane-cutting, mechanical harvesting and the mills. There will be a big expansion in both cutting and mill activity this year. Consequently my department is co-operating with the Queensland Cane Growers Council to see that the necessary labour is recruited. The going will be hard. It will be difficult to get the men we need but the present forecast is that we will be able to get them. We have made arrangements as a stand-by for the initial part of the season to recruit between 300 and 350 migrants to come into the sugar industry. Our prospects look reasonably good, but there will be difficulties. My department will continue to pay close attention to this matter in order to ensure as far as is possible that an adequate supply of labour is maintained during the year.

page 657




– I ask the Minister for Air: Is a Swedish ship missing after a cyclone off the Western Australian coast? Has a request for a search by the Royal Australian Air Force been refused? Was the refusal given because no suitable aircraft are stationed in Western Australia? Are suitable Air Force aircraft being sent from the eastern States to undertake the search?

Minister for Air · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the first question asked by the honorable member is that the Swedish ship is not missing. I understand that it turned up this morning. The answer to the other questions is that the Director of Navigation discussed this matter with the Royal Australian Air Force to see whether we should organize a search. After discussion, both the Director of Navigation and the Royal Australian Air Force realized that because of the very vague nature of the last reported position of the ship, there was no point in organizing a search because the area to be covered would have been so large that the chances of finding the ship would have been almost nil. We, of course, have aeroplanes. We have one of the longest-range maritime aeroplanes operating anywhere in the world. Our aircraft would have bad no difficulty in getting’ the required range, and we could have refuelled them on the Cocos Islands. We also pointed out that the area in which the ship was last seen was a good deal closer to the Maldive Islands than to our maritime base in Australia and that there is a Royal Air Force base on those islands. We suggested that the Royal Air Force might have been approached.

page 657




– I address a question lo the Minister for External Affairs. By way of preface, I remind him that on previous occasions I have addressed to him questions regarding the Soviet Union’s arrears of contributions to the United Nations. I refer also to a question asked by the honorable member for Calare on the 25th of last month concerning the application of Article 19 of the United Nations Charter which deprives a member country of the right to vote in the General Assembly if it becomes two years in arrears. I also remind the Minister that he stated in this House on 29th October last that it would be a serious step to deprive a member state of its vote, particularly when that state is a permanent member of the Security Council. Against that background, I ask the Minister: First, did the Soviet Union become two years in arrears on 1st January this year? Secondly, is it possible that a special meeting of the General Assembly will be convened at short notice? Thirdly, will the Minister forecast what is likely to happen when the General Assembly meets again and what the attitude of the Australian Government will be at that time?


– I know that the honorable member for Ryan and the honorable member for Calare have been very interested in this question of United Nations finances. I am sure that each honorable member is very alert to the consequences of the United Nations being unable to be financed. Also the honorable member for Ryan has reminded me that last October I said in the House that it was a very serious thing indeed to refuse the right to vote to a member state of the United Nations, particularly when that state is a great power such as the Soviet Union is.

The Australian Government has taken the view - I have expressed it before - that Article 19, which the honorable -member correctly summarized; ought to’ be enforce’d, and enforced with ‘absolute ‘impartiality, against any power, whether large or small; and that if it is not enforced the prospect of the affairs of the United Nations being conducted in an orderly manner will really be very dim. Indeed, it may be impossible to have an orderly development of the organization. There are enough other possibilities of diversion from the strict letter of the United Nations Charter without diverting from it in respect of expenses and such a provision as Article 19.

The Soviet Union, along with other nations which have not paid their contributions, has had an opportunity to put its view to the International Court of Justice, which has ruled that the assessments which have been served on the Soviet Union and other nations are proper assessments. There now remains only one question, namely whether or not the money which is due will be paid and, if it is not paid, whether the article will be enforced. We have already stated that the attitude of the Australian Government is that the article should be enforced. That will be our attitude the next time the General Assembly meets. We shall take the stand that the vote should be denied if the money is not paid, that is to say, if the Soviet is not in credit to the necessary extent under Article 19.

The honorable member has asked whether there is a likelihood of a special assembly sitting soon. I do not want to be taken as expecting a special assembly sitting because I do not; but of course it is possible that events will arise at any time which will cause a special assembly sitting to be convened. But whether it be at a special assembly or at the next ordinary General Assembly, the question will arise - we shall meet it head on, as it were - as to whether or not the Soviet shall be allowed to vote if it has not paid the arrears which have now accumulated to such an extent as to disentitle the Soviet to a vote under Article 19.

Mr Whitlam:

– Is France financial yet?


– As far as

I know it is not yet fully financial, but at the moment I am thinking of the Soviet in particular. I conclude by repeating that the Australian Government’s attitude will be quite unambiguous. We shall take the stand that the article should be enforced and, if the dues are not paid, the vote denied.

page 658



Mr Allan Fraser:

– Will the Minister for Social Services obtain advice from his departmental experts to-day, to ensure that the provision in the Social Services Bill 1964 relating to students fully accords with the Government’s intention? The Government’s intention, as stated in the secondreading speech, is to make the allowance available to all full-time students but, as honorable members know, the provision in the bill limits the allowance to full-time students at a school, university or college. Whilst I fully appreciate the value of the assurance given last night-


– Order! The honorable member is giving information and his question is too long. I ask him to direct his question.

Mr Allan Fraser:

– Thank you, Sir. Although the assurance was given that correspondence school students will be covered, will the Minister also ensure -


– Order! The honorable member has already referred to that. He will direct his question, seeking information.

Mr Allan Fraser:

– Will the Minister inquire whether, and take steps to ensure, that students who are receiving private tuition full-time will be covered by the legislation?

Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

- Mr. Speaker, I was interested in your criticism that the honorable member’s question was too long. If I may be permitted to say so, it was also too stupid. There is no need for me to seek the advice of my departmental officers to enable me to carry out Government policy. It is the manifest duty of departmental officers and Ministers to carry out Government policy at all times, and that will be done.

page 658




– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by pointing out that in the case of catastrophic illnesses the benefits payable under existing tables inevitably cover only a small fraction of specialist fees, and that this can be financially disastrous to the unhappy patients. I have in mind, for example, an operation for cancer involving fees of the order of hundreds of guineas. Has the Minister yet had an opportunity to confer with his colleague on the practicability of introducing a new table limited to insurance against catastrophic illnesses under which contributions may be paid in addition to or in substitution for the tables at present offered by the approved medical benefits funds? If this aspect has not been considered, will the Minister take steps to have it considered with a view to action during the next Budget session?


– Some discussions on this matter have been held recently and on several occasions investigations have been made into the possibility of introducing a special table to cover catastrophic illnesses, but as a result of the surveys which were made it was decided that there would not be sufficient support in the community to warrant the introduction of a special table. It was found that the majority of illnesses are already covered to a pretty substantial degree by existing tables and no action was considered necessary at the time. However, I will see that the matter is again referred to my colleague for further consideration. I point out that legislation will be introduced into this House very shortly to extend Commonwealth medical benefits, and this will be of assistance, not only to people suffering from catastrophic illnesses but also to all other people insured under the national health scheme who suffer any kind of illness.

page 659




– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Commissioner of Taxation allow a newspaper company against which a judgment has been given in a libel action to deduct the costs of the action and the amount of damages awarded from its taxable income for the year?


– My understanding is that such a deduction is permitted, the expenditure being regarded as a part of the normal working expenses of a newspaper which has to run the risks- attendant upon getting out news from day to day or from week to week. However, I think that those who claim to have been victimized by a newspaper and subsequently receive substantial financial compensation are in the favoured position of being able to regard such an award as a capital gain. ‘’ 1

page 659




– I address a question to the Postmaster-General. Is it true that the Postal Department no longer requires an addressee to complete an A.R. form for registered mail? Ji so, why has this practice been discontinued? Is it realized that the discontinuance of this practice is of considerable concern to sections of the business community, such as hire-purchase companies, as it makes it more difficult for them to trace some of their more elusive clients? If this practice has been discontinued, why are the receipt forms still issued? As I have had one delivered recently to me in this chamber - not from a hire-purchase company, but stamped and addressed to another person - may I destroy it without contravening postal regulations?


– The honorable member refers to what is known in the Postal Department as the “ A.R. “ system - the addressee receipt system. It was instituted some years ago so that the sender of mail matter could obtain the signature of the person to whom it was sent upon its receipt by that person. The receipt of other mail matter in a similar category could be acknowledged by an agent on behalf of the addressee, but if an additional fee was paid under the “ A.R.” system the actual addressee was then required to give his signature. In many cases debt collectors and others who had the last known address of an addressee would use this system, hoping to find the latest address of that addressee who, perhaps, was not too keen on meeting his commitments. After a time we were advised that under postal regulations the Post Office was not allowed to divulge these new addresses to the senders of mail matter, and as from last November the practice has been discontinued. I can assure the honorable member that there has since been a considerable falling off in the volume of mail sent under this system.

page 659




– I ask the Minister for the Army a question. Why does the Army pay smaller wages to aborigines than to its other civilian employees in the Northern Territory, when it gives the same pay and 1 allowances to aboriginal soldiers as to other soldiers without discrimination?

Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The normal practice of the Department of the Army in these circumstances is to conform with the customary practice in the area concerned - in this case the customary practice in the Northern Territory. However, 1 will investigate the matter and give the honorable member a reply.

page 660




– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I ask: As the traffic problem has become increasingly serious in the city of Melbourne and its suburbs, will the Minister at every opportunity stress the practical advantage of Portland and endeavour to encourage the shipping of goods to and from all of western Victoria through that decentralized deep-sea port?


– I think it is well known that about 50 per cent, of the goods transported around Australia are carried by sea. The economics of sea transport should be well known to the commercial community; but that is a matter which must be left to the judgment of business mcn.

page 660




– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by saying that on Tuesday last the Minister for External Affairs informed me that before a matter is referred to the United Nations one should be sure of what information about a dispute is possessed by each nation, and of other factors that might be working to influence nations in voting. I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that all member nations of the Commonwealth are fully aware of the facts of the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia. As it is over two years since the last conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers was held, will he consider requesting the United Kingdom Prime Minister to convene such a conference to ensure that at least all Commonwealth countries have a full knowledge of the dispute, and also to give them an opportunity to discuss matters of mutual Commonwealth interest?


- Mr. Speaker, I can say quite plainly that all other Commonwealth countries are constantly kept in possession of, our views and our information on this matter-. As to- the possibility, of ‘a

Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference, all 1 can say is that 1 imagine that the possibility and the date will both be affected by the electoral position in Great Britain. I do not know - nor does anybody else, as far as I am aware - when the United Kingdom election will be held.

Dr J F Cairns:

– How will you get on with Mr. Wilson?


– I always get on well with everybody. The Prime Ministers’ union is a very good union. We are all good friends, whoever we may be. But how can I tell when the election is to be held and whether the circumstances will permit of a Prime Ministers’ conference?

page 660




– I address my question to the Minister for Air. I ask the honorable gentleman whether any modifications have been necessary to the design of the Mirage aircraft in order to make it operational under Australian conditions. May 1 further inquire of the honorable gentleman whether there are in existence ground communications control systems which will enable Mirage aircraft to be completely operational under all conditions and circumstances?

Mr. FAIRBAIRN__ There were, of course, in the early stages of development of the Mirage 111.0 a great many modifications, some of which were made to suit Australian conditions and some to suit conditions of flying generally. The modifications have proved remarkably successful. We have now almost completed the tests at Darwin of the Mirage 111.0 and the results have exceeded our greatest expectations. The aircraft will be coming back in two or three days to Williamtown. Honorable members will remember that during the testing of our last fighter aircraft - the Sabre - some problems were encountered in the Darwin area. Honorable members may not realize that temperatures at high altitude near the tropics are very much lower than temperatures at height near the poles. As my Air Force colleagues realize, this is because the tropopause is higher at the equator. Temperatures down to about minus 85 degrees centigrade have been encountered at heights of over 50,000 feet above Darwin. This ‘involves problems of flame-Out in ‘tHe engines and freezing of the fuel. However, the Mirage has been tested out under operational conditions and it has come through without any problems of any sort. The guns were fired at heights up to 55,000 feet and we also tried out new pressure suits which will be used by pilots of the Mirage. The tests were so successful that we even took out the engine used in the Mirage and replaced it with a slightly modified engine which gave a longer range. Although it had some problems of surge the modified engine also has been successfully tested.

All the ground facilities are not yet available, but as well as the Tacan system, which we have at every one of our Air Force bases, we have air-transportable sets which can be carried to any base by Hercules aircraft. In addition we have ultrahigh frequency homing equipment and we will be putting Doppler navigation equipment in the last 50 Mirage aircraft.

page 661


Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 7th April, at 2.30 p.m.

page 661


Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen.

Minister for Territories · McPherson · CP

– I move -

That the following Joint Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen: -

To the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign:

We, the Members of the Senate and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, pray that Your Majesty will give directions that a Mace be presented, by and on behalf of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, to the House of Assembly of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea to mark the inauguration of that legislature.

With Your Majesty’s consent, this gift will be presented to signify the role played by British parliamentary traditions in the development of the parliamentary system, and in the belief that the people of the Territory will gain inspiration from those traditions.

Honorable members will recall that the Legislative Council for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea was abolished and the House of Assembly created by the Papua and New Guinea Act, 1963. The new

House of Assembly will have 64 members of whom 44 are to be elected from open electorates and 10 are to be elected from special electorates restricted to nonindigenous persons of the Territory. The remaining 10 members of the House will be official members appointed by the GovernorGeneral on the nomination of the Administrator. Voting for election of members has just concluded and the first meeting of the first session of the new House will commence at Port Moresby on 8th June next.

As the House of Assembly was created by the Commonwealth Parliament it is appropriate that a gift should be made by this Parliament to the House of Assembly on the occasion of its inaugural meeting. Following a suggestion made by my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Hasluck) when he was Minister for Territories, the President of the Senate and Mr. Speaker decided that the gift would be in the form of a mace which will be presented to the House of Assembly by the leader of a delegation from this Parliament.

The mace is being manufactured in Australia in sterling silver heavily plated with gold. The head of the mace bears a Royal Crown. Engraved on the mace will be the Royal Cypher and the Australian Coat of Arms and it will be embellished with devices representing the personality and achievements of the peoples of the Territory - agriculture, industry and communications - and the Territory’s link with Australia. Some of the materials incorporated in the mace will be of Papua and New Guinea origin.

It was suggested that if the mace were brought into use with Royal approbation or presented by Royal direction it would have great significance. With this in mind this joint address from both Houses of the Parliament is commended for consideration of honorable members.

Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– I second the motion. I think it is right that this House should make a gesture to this new Parliament in a Territory of Australia which is allied with another part of the same country that is a United Nations Trust Territory, and which we administer in association with the first part. The Opposition was not consulted as to the form which this gesture should take. For my part-and speaking, I think, for most other people on my side of politics - another form of recognition of the importance of the new Parliament might have been chosen. I have some doubt as to whether the presentation of a mace is the right thing to do at this time. 1 do not believe in maces or in the wearing of gowns and wigs or anything of that sort. I think it is all out-dated. I am afraid that we might be trying to mould these native people into our way of thinking. I think that the presentation of a chair might have been a better method of expressing our good will towards them. But, having expressed those views, I certainly commend the idea and hope that this territory will remain part of our Commonwealth. 1 hope it will, although 1 have my doubts as to what will happen in the future. 1 have a feeling that sooner or later Papua-New Guinea may be independent and outside the Commonwealth and I would not like to think that a gift from this Parliament would then be rejected by the people of the Territory or. worse than that, be defaced. I have those feelings, and 1 am entitled to express them.

Mr Falkinder:

– What other form do you think the presentation might take?


– 1 think a chair would have been the best thing we could have presented, because the chair which the Speaker will occupy in the new Parliament is a replica of the Speakers Chair in the Commons. I think we might have presented a chair, which would be symbolic of the association of Australia with the Parliament of Papua-New Guinea. May the people of the Territory long remain associated with Australia and advance in education and social stature. By that means may the link between Australia and Papua-New Guinea be made as permanent as we human beings, living in this age of uncertainty and change, can possibly expect.

page 662


Motion (by Mr. Fairhall) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent three customs tariff bills-

being presented and read a first time to gether and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings, of all the bills together, and

the consideration of the bills in one

Committee of the Whole.

page 662


Bills presented by Mr. Fairhall, and read a first time.

Second Readings

Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

– I move -

That the bills be now read a second time.

We have before us for discussion a bill to amend the Customs Tariff 1933-1963 and two complementary tariff preference bills. These bills will enact Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 84 to 100, Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals Nos. 10 and 11 and Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals Nos. 18 and 19, tabled in the House between 14th August and the end of sittings on 31st October last year. Because the Proposals could not be debated before the Parliament was dissolved the collection of duties was validated until 30th June, 1964.

Under the new procedures of the House it is not necessary, now that the rates of duty are legally validated, to introduce the proposed tariff changes by formal Tariff Proposals. The tariff changes are now being introduced as a bill and the passage of this bill will constitute the long-term legal authority for the collection of the duties. For the information of honorable members I shall outline the tariff changes to be made by the bill. The amendment on raw coffee completes the implementation, following international negotiations, of the tariff changes recommended by the Tariff Board as a means of assistance to the coffee industry in Papua-New Guinea. On canned tuna, at the suggestion of the Tariff Board, the rate of duty is to be increased by 7d. per lb. following the removal of sales tax on imports of this product in the last budget. A temporary duty of 5d. per lb. is imposed on fish in solid packs - other than salmon and tuna - in accordance with a recommendation by a Special Advisory Authority. This duty is to apply until the Tariff Board has had an opportunity to examine the long-term protective needs of the fishing industry.

Consequent on the implementation of the Tariff Board report on glycerine, fatty acids, soaps and other detergents, duties will be increased on refined glycerine, oleic acid, stearic acid and on organic surface-active agents and preparations thereof. Crude glycerine remains admissible at nonprotective rates of duty, while the duties on crude tallow oil, which is not produced in Australia, are being removed entirely. The protective duties on soaps remain unchanged. On floor coverings of linoleum, cork, vinyl, rubber, asbestos and like compositions, the changes recommended by the Tariff Board and accepted by the Government, provide in general for moderately increased protection against competition from the main source of imports.

On refrigerating appliance parts increased protection is imposed on sealed motor units up to two horse-power. Otherwise the duties revert to the level applying before the temporary duties were imposed. Following the Tariff Board’s report on portable electric hand tools, provision is being made to enable all types of vibratory massagers to be admitted under customs by-laws at nonprotective rates of Free British Preferential Tariff and 7i per cent. MostFavouredNation. Increased duties on die casting machines of not less than 70 tons and not more than 1,200 tons clamping capacity are proposed following the board’s recommendation that moderate protective duties would enable the manufacturer to obtain a larger share of the Australian market and a reasonable return on funds.

On sparking plugs imported separately or as original equipment for motor vehicles, the British Preferential Tariff duties remain unchanged but the ad valorem portion of the alternative Most-Favoured-Nation rate has been reduced by 12i per cent, to 37i per cent. The fixed rate portion of the MostFavouredNation rate remains unchanged, so that the minimum Most-Favoured-Nation duty remains at 1 3d. per plug. Both British Preferential Tariff and MostFavouredNation duties on the insulating bodies for spark plugs have been increased by 7i per cent, ad valorem. On magnet winding wire the duties are to be increased to 20 per cent. British Preferential Tariff and 27* per cent. Most-Favoured-Nation to allow Australian manufacturers to compete profitably against imports. The Government has decided, however, that there should be a further review of this industry in three years time.

In respect of television receiver components, minimum duties of 25s. each and 10s. each, respectively, are to be imposed on channel tuners for television receivers and deflection yokes for cathode ray tubes.

On engravers’ blocks, the board has recommended, and the Government has adopted, a moderate increase in protection against imports from the main source of competition affecting the production in Australia of engravers’ zinc plates.

On bisphenol A, the duties are to be increased to lid. per lb. British preferential tariff, with the most-favoured-nation rate determined at the lowest level consistent with international commitments. Bisphenol A is a basic ingredient in the manufacture of epoxy resins.

Increased protection is also being provided for the Australian production of epoxy resins by an increase of 10 per cent, ad valorem in the most-favoured-nation rate on liquid grades and by new alternative fixed rate duties on both solid and liquid grades. The fixed-rate duties of ls. 3d. per lb. on solid grades and ls. 9d. per lb. on liquid grades are designed to apply in the event of any further decline in the overseas price of epoxy resins.

On ceramic flooring and wall tiles, the temporary duties which have applied to lowcost imports of glazed 6-inch by 6-inch coloured tiles are being replaced by ordinary duties at a level li per cent, ad valorem higher than before. The increases are applicable to all tiles and tile biscuit exceeding 10 square inches in area.

For vinyl acetate monomer, duties are imposed at a level based on a mostfavourednation rate of £57 per ton. This is higher than the ordinary duties previously applying but lower than the combined ordinary and temporary duties being replaced.

On phthalic anhydride, the new duties of 5d. per lb. British preferential tariff and 6id. per lb. most-favoured-nation are higher than the existing ordinary duties but lower than the combined ordinary and temporary duties. It is proposed to review the duties in two years’ time.

On sunglasses, spectacle frames, etc., the only variation in duties is a small reduction affecting a negligible range of imports. The change was recommended by the Tariff Board.

The changes in respect of paper and paperboard follow international consultations and talks with representatives of both manufacturing and importing sections of the Australian paper industry. They spell out in a more practical manner the changes recommended by the Tariff Board in its report on paper and paperboard, which was tabled on 17th April last year.

The existing ordinary duties on cycle saddles have been found by the Tariff Board to provide adequate protection against imports of leather saddles and the temporary duties are therefore being removed.

On drums, new protective duties of 20 per cent. British preferential tariff and 30 per cent, most-favoured-nation are being introduced on the recommendation of the Tariff Board, but provision is also made for admission at concessional rates of certain types of drums and drum heads outside the range of local production.

The increased ordinary duties on sheets, strip and plates of unsaturated polyester provide a protective level of 40 per cent, ad valorem applicable to imports from most-favoured-nation countries, with British preferential rates determined in accordance with international commitments. These increases follow an inquiry by the Tariff Board.

Vinyl chloride polymers and copolymers specially prepared for the manufacture of sound-reproduction discs become dutiable at 6d. per lb. British preferential tariff and 7Jd. per lb. most-favoured-nation, while temporary duties are removed from other goods which were under reference to the Tariff Board. In the last Parliament, as a complement to the duties now imposed, a bounty act to assist the Australian production of uncompounded vinyl chloride polymers was passed. It provided for the payment of bounty at the rate of 4d. per lb.

Increased protection is to be provided for slide viewers and image projectors of types designed for the projection of slide or film strip transparencies and being produced in Australia. Certain other types not made in Australia are being admitted under customs by-law at concessional rates. This action follows a report by the Tariff Board on the protective needs of manufacturers of these goods.

Increased protection of 9d. per square yard is to be accorded the printing of silk piece goods in accordance with the Tariff Board’s recommendations. Temporary duties on a sliding scale, but not exceeding ls. 3d. per square yard, are to be imposed on certain woven fabrics wholly of or containing not less than 20 per cent, by weight of man-made fibres. The temporary duties, which will operate in addition to the normal duties, are not payable on fabrics having a free-on-board price of 48d. or less per square yard or 120d. or more per square yard. This action follows a recommendation by a Special Advisory Authority. The normal protective needs of this industry have been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report, and the temporary duties will operate only until such time as the Government takes action upon receipt of the final report of the board.

Following Tariff Board recommendations, linen fabrics become dutiable at ad valorem rates of 37i per cent. British preferential tariff and 471 per cent, mostfavourednation, in lieu of combined ad valorem and fixed-rate duties. Prepared painting canvas, which is not produced in Australia, becomes dutiable at non-protective rates of free British preferential tariff and 7i per cent, otherwise.

Following recommendations by a Special Advisory Authority, temporary duties are to be imposed on certain bleached or coloured sheetings of cotton or in chief part by weight of cotton, weighing not less than 3 ounces per square yard’ and not more than 7 ounces per square yard, when for use as bed sheeting or pillow casing or in the making up of bed sheets or pillow cases. The temporary duties will not, however, be payable on the dearer range of fabrics in the 4 to 7 ounce area. The normal protective needs of this industry have also been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report, and the temporary duties will operate only until such time as the Government takes action upon receipt of the final report of the board.

Although the duty changes I have out* lined above are new, so far as ‘this bill ls concerned I should remind honorable members that the changes took effect over a period of about two and one-half months - actually between 15th August, 1963, and 31st October, 1963. The collection of duties in accordance with these proposals was validated to 30th June, 1964, and the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2.) 1964, when enacted, is to supersede the validation act. I commend the bills to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr. J. F. Cairns) adjourned.

page 665


Smoking and Lung Cancer - Telephone Services - Handling of Explosives on Sydney Harbour - Political Parties - Social Services - Repatriation - Development of Northern Australia.

Question proposed -

That grievances be noted.


.- Mr. Speaker, this morning, we are to have a grievance debate. One may regard this as private member’s business. Normally, we are entitled to at least one and one-half hours’ discussion in a debate of this kind on a Thursday morning. But nearly one-half hour of the time that should have been available to private members has been taken up by Ministers. I do not know whether this is indicative of a pattern of arrogance to be adopted by the Government throughout the life of the present Parliament. If it is, I can assure Government supporters that the Opposition will give them just what they are asking for. The action of Ministers this morning has been completely inconsiderate and arrogant.

I turn now to the subject that I rose to discuss. In 1960, the Royal College of Physicians in London issued a report dealing with the link between smoking and lung cancer. Very soon after that report was made public, support for its findings was announced by the Royal Australian College of Physicians in a report issued here. The medical fraternity throughout Australia generally supports these two reports and opposes the indiscriminate advertising of cigarettes and tobacco and the encouragement of our youth to smoke. I think it has been shown without doubt that smoking not only is a likely cause of lung cancer but also adversely affects the health of our whole nation.

In a speech I made on 2nd May, 1963, I accused the executives of tobacco companies of being greedy for wealth, dishonest and corrupt. I said they were using powerful advertising media to entice the youth of our nation to take up smoking. Very little coverage of my speech was given in the newspapers which, of course, control the radio and television stations. The newspaper proprietors did not want to lose the large volume of advertising undertaken by tobacco companies and so they did not want to enlighten the people on these issues. However, the Australian Broadcasting Commission gave my speech a fairly wide coverage. Subsequently I received a lengthy letter containing at least six pages of technical detail and arguments against the proposition of the Royal College of Physicians.

I did not want to use my privileged position in the Parliament to call company executives greedy for wealth, dishonest and corrupt. I therefore restrained myself for quite some time and I first raised this matter in the Parliament this morning when I asked a question. I sent the information conveyed to me in the letter from the high executive of a tobacco company to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to obtain its views. In fairness, I heard arguments for and against the effects of smoking. I delved still further into this subject. Some people argue very strongly that the scientific evidence supports the view that smoking is the cause of lung cancer. As I said earlier, most members of the medical fraternity oppose efforts to entice our youth into the smoking habit. Further than this, we have the report of the United States Surgeon-General, which shows that smoking is associated not only with lung cancer but also with chronic bronchitis, coronary disease and other lung diseases.

The overwhelming evidence shows that smoking and its effects have an important bearing on the health of the community. In raising this matter, I want to make clear that I am not trying to tell those who smoke what they should do or should not do. It is up to them whether they moderate their smoking or smoke more. That is their business. I have said before that during the war when I was in confined places, particularly as a prisoner of war, I saw eminent people with intelligent minds selling their breakfast for a packet of cigarettes. There is no doubt that smoking does develop a hold over the individual. Therefore, I do not say to people who smoke: “ You must stop smoking. It is a sin and it is destroying your health”. They can control their smoking habits as they wish; it is entirely a matter for them. However, when tobacco companies use the powerful media of television, radio, newspapers and posters to entice the youth of our nation into smoking, I in this National Parliament have the right to protest.

The Minister for Health (Senator Wade) said that the Commonwealth Government has no power to control the advertising of cigarettes. This was reported in the “Sydney Morning Herald” of 20th January, 1964. As I said this morning to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), that statement is false and the Governments knows that it is. The Government has the power to control the advertising of cigarettes. It can direct that money spent on the advertising of cigarettes will not be allowed as a deduction for taxation purposes. If this does not deter the tobacco companies, the Government can go still further. It can use its taxing powers to impose a super sales tax on the advertising of cigarettes.

Mr James:

– Or amend the Broadcasting and Television Act.


– That is not the only way to curb them. As the honorable member for Hunter has just said, we can amend the Broadcasting and Television Act and introduce a control over the advertising of cigarettes. The Treasurer this morning did not meet the issue. He tried to pass the buck by referring to poker machines in New South Wales. Every honest member knows that poker machines are becoming a real problem, but the Treasurer forgets that the Commonwealth Government collects sales tax of 33) per cent, on every poker machine that is sold. He implied that the New South Wales Government was raising revenue from poker machines. He should remember that the State Government was compelled to turn to this source for further revenue because it was being starved of funds by the Commonwealth Government.

I am not trying to excuse the use of poker machines; many social problems are created by their use. But we are dealing here with the health of our youth.

We should take action in this Parliament to protect the health of the community. We can use the Commonwealth’s taxing powers to control the advertising of cigarettes. If we have sufficient determination, we can amend the Broadcasting and Television Act. Control over the advertising of cigarettes is exercised in other countries. Such control exists in Great Britain, the United States of America and the Scandinavian countries, and we should accept our responsibilities in this Parliament. I do not say that I have covered all the means by which this advertising could be controlled. For instance, the Commonwealth Minister for Health could co-operate with the State Ministers for Education and Health and the Commonwealth could give financial assistance to the States to enable them to undertake a programme to educate children on the evils of smoking. We in this Parliament should take positive action immediately to control the advertising of cigarettes. As I have said, we can make expenditure on this advertising a non-deductible item for taxation purposes and, if necessary, we can impose a super sales tax on it.

The tobacco companies are using the powerful advertising media to foster the use of their products. They are suggesting to our young people that smoking is manly, that it is romantic and that it is the right thing to do. I have never seen so much hypocrisy and lying. I ask the executives of the tobacco companies to look at the effects of their activities. They should devise a code of ethics and should stop trying to lead our young people blindly into the stupid habit of smoking. I repeat that I am not talking about people who already smoke. Whether they continue to smoke is a matter for them and they can make up their own minds. But we in this Parliament should do what we can to protect the health of our young people.


.- The first of several matters I wish to bring before the House this morning concerns the Postmaster-General’s Department. It is not a criticism of the department; it is rather a plea. It refers to the shortage of men and materials affecting the department’s programme, especially in connecting telephone services. We know that for quite some time the Postmaster-General’s Department has not been able to meet all applications and that there is a waiting list. There was a big back log after World War I.I, but that is a’ long time ago and we should now be in a position where people wanting telephones can get them quickly.

Wc in this country wish to encourage the decentralisation of industry and various services, such as power, roads and water, are made available. But we find that the activities of these industries are being retarded because of the lack of telephones. I realize that the number of telephones required is very large. Not only do more people require them but also the percentage of people wanting telephones has increased in the last few years. My inquiries have revealed that in some cases line and equipment is available for a telephone service but sufficient staff is not available to connect the service. 1 bring this matter before the House this morning because I believe the time has arrived for the Government to give more consideration and help to the Postmaster-General’s Department so that telephone services may be provided more quickly than has hitherto been the case.

I will cite two examples in my own area. I have discussed with the PostmasterGeneral the outstanding applications in the East Gosford area. He has advised me that the first stage of new work in the area was programmed for the 1962-63 financial year but, duc to other urgent works, that section was not started until late in the financial year and has not yet been completed. The second stage of the work was programmed for 1963-64 and provides for a 1,200 pair cable going into the Springfield area. Work on this latter project will follow the completion of stage 1, and it is expected that service to applicants in the area will be commenced to be given after six months has elapsed and that telephones should be connected within the next twelve months. I know that a number of people in that area have been waiting 18 months for a telephone. That example alone highlights the need for detailed consideration and more help to be given to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department.

The next matter I raise also concerns the Postmaster-General’s Department. I will refer for a few moments to the need for frequency modulation broadcasting. I direct the attention of the PostmasterGeneral to speeches made in the twentythird and twenty-fourth Parliaments by the honorable member for Paterson (Mr. Fairhall), Senator Hannan, other honorable members and by me. It will bc recalled that the Australian Broadcasting Commission provided frequency modulation broadcasting of an experimental nature for quite a number of months and that the new service proved very popular with listeners. Unfortunately, owing, I believe, to instructions from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the service was discontinued about two years ago. In reply to representations made to it the board said that it did not think there was a very great demand for frequency modulation broadcasting; but since the speeches that I and other honorable members have made it has become obvious that an increasing number of people desire frequency modulation broadcasting in Australia. If countries like the United Kingdom, West Germany, Austria and the United States of America are increasing their frequency modulation broadcasting services why must Australia abandon its service? One reason given to me is that the wave bands are required for fixed and mobile services. 1 will not go into this matter in detail again because it has been raised on other occasions. So far we have not received a satisfactory answer from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board as to why frequency modulation broadcasting cannot be restored, using the 92-94 megacycle band.

The final matter I raise concerns the Outward Bound Movement. Yesterday at question-time I asked the Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) whether his department could arrange for the Outward Bound Movement to train instructors and youth leaders for proposed courses in Papua and New Guinea. I believe the time has come for this Parliament to take note of the work that is being done by the Outward Bound Movement in training young people in leadership. It is time the Parliament investigated how it might help this very worthy movement. During the past three years sixteen young men and two young women, all natives of Papua and New

Guinea, have attended the Outward Bound school at Fisherman’s Point on the Hawkesbury River. Fees and travelling expenses for those students have been provided from private sources, some in the Territory and some in New South Wales. Rotary clubs in Sydney and Port Moresby have helped considerably. There is now a proposal to set up a training camp in Papua and New Guinea. The camp would be available for use by all youth organizations in the Territory. The leaders of political and business interests in Papua and New Guinea are confident that such an establishment would play a vital part in the development of the Territory.

A major problem to be faced is the shortage of young Papuan men and women, trained in youth leadership, available to assist in such courses. We believe that the Australian Outward Bound Movement could go a long way towards solving this problem. I am glad to say that such a scheme would not require a great deal of money to establish. The Australian Outward Bound Movement has told me informally that it is prepared to assist in running these courses by lending experienced Australian instructors to support Papuan staff. I am informed that such a scheme would need some Government aid. The present cost for a New Guinea student to attend the Australian Outward Bound school, including the cost of transport and clothing, is about £175. To keep him there as a student instructor for the following course would cost an additional £50. It is felt that at least twelve candidates, including one or two young women, drawn from all sections of Papua and New Guinea, should be selected annually for three years. This would cost not more than £2,500 a year. I return to my opening remark: I think the time is appropriate for this Parliament to take note of the work being done by the Outward Bound Movement and to see in what way it can assist the movement to achieve its very worthy objectives.


.- -I rise in this debate as a result of a letter I have received from one of my constituents. In order to put the House properly in the picture concerning this matter I do not think it would be out of place for me to read the letter. My constituent states -

During the week ending 7th instant two vessels were moored at separate buoys near our home* which is a waterfront property in the Longnose Point area of Balmain.

One of the vessels was M.V. “ Marra “, an Adelaide Steamship Company Limited vessel under charter to the Army and the other was an Army mobile ammunition lighter of the type used to dump unsafe ammunition off the Heads, one of which a few years ago blew up at sea off Sydney Heads with considerable loss of life.

Both of these vessels were engaged in the loading and unloading of ammunition. We had a grandstand view of the operations as the vessels were only a few hundred yards away, between the shore and Cockatoo Dock, where our son works.

I would be pleased if you would ask the Minister for the Army why these vessels were working ammunition in such a heavily populated area. Surely a much more isolated spot could have been found.

At the same time would you ask the Minister if he knows that the only place where explosives can be handled is in the declared explosives area as shown on Port Jackson charts - off Double Bay - and whether the Department of the Army had received special permission from the Sydney Harbour Master to load or unload explosives into ships as has been stated.

At the same time, perhaps the Minister can remember the name of the Clan Line vessel, with ammunition on board, which blew up in Bombay during the last war, demolishing a large part of that city and claiming many thousands of lives.

The area concerned is part of the constituency that I represent. I am surprised at the claims made in the letter. When I outline the area, I think honorable members will readily appreciate the concern that my constituent feels about this loading and unloading of ammunition. Long Nose Point adjoins a heavy industrial area. There are also oil storage tanks in the locality.

I ask the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) the following questions: What is the position of the Army in relation to this matter? If, as has been stated, a particular part of Port Jackson is set aside for this purpose, did the Army obtain permission to load and unload ammunition in this densely populated area? If it did not, why did it not? I think we all can recall an incident that occurred not very long ago in which a naval ship similar to some of the ships in question was on its way to dump ammunition at sea and an explosion occurred, with subsequent loss of life.

There must always be an element of risk associated with this operation. But it is rather saddening to find the Army undertaking , the operation in« . such _ densely populated areas. Recent events have made it’ apparent that far too many people argue that explosions cannot happen. Unfortunately, history shows that they have happened far too often and at the most unexpected times and, consequently, have resulted in quite an amount of devastation and loss of life. As I said, the area in which these two ships were loading and unloading ammunition is a very heavily populated part of Sydney. If anything were to go amiss and an explosion were to occur, I shudder to think of the effects. Consequently, I join with my constituent in putting to the Minister for the Army the questions that he has asked in his letter. Why was it necessary to perform an operation of this kind in such an area? Why did the Army not obtain permission from the harbour master of Port Jackson and carry out this operation in the prescribed area? I submit that this matter cannot be passed off lightly. I regard it as very urgent and very important. I hope that in the interests of everybody the Minister for the Army will be able to give a reasonable explanation and that the Army will take adequate precautions and do everything possible to avoid an explosion, because if an explosion occurred in that area the effects would be equal to anything that happened in the incident to which my correspondent referred, when the ammunition ship blew up in Bombay.


.- J fully agree with the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren) that the full time should be allowed for Grievance Day and that debates on bills and other business should not be permitted to take up some of that time. However, on looking at the list of speakers for this morning, it appears to me that it may be difficult to keep this debate going with worth-while material until the time for the debate has elapsed. I believe that that position is caused partly by the fact that it is very difficult to have any grievance against the record of this Government. When 1 look at the list of speakers, I notice that there are only seven names on it. Nevertheless, in order to give every honorable member an opportunity to speak, I hope that I will not take my full time.

Mr Uren:

– So do we.

Mr.’TURNBULL.- I supported what you said.- I Wish ‘to’- refer to the” last election campaign. I hope that I am the same in victory as 1 would be in defeat. Members of the Labour Party have said that the Government is arrogant. Of course this is not so. 1 am not a member of the Government; but I am a supporter of it. Honorable members opposite will not hear me saying anything about the great victory of the Government and the defeat of the Labour Party, because I realize that as time goes on the pendulum will swing and the Labour Party will have a victory. This Government has been in office for a long time. I hope that if the Labour Party gets into office in the years to come its legislation will be as pleasing to the people as this Government’s legislation has been over the past fourteen years. i have only one grievance to speak of this morning. In the election campaign in Mallee I had an Australian Labour Party opponent and a Democratic Labour Party opponent. I must say that all the cornpaigning was conducted in a delightful way. At the declaration of the poll each candidate expressed pleasure at the way the other candidates had conducted their campaigns. It appears that that was not the position all over the country. As I am a supporter of the Menzies-McEwen Government. I supported its programme during the election campaign.

What I am concerned about is that the Labour Party has been speaking about tha propoganda that was used by its opponents in the election campaign. But I believe that one of the most despicable pieces of propaganda used in the campaign was used by the Labour Party. If any member of the Labour Party thinks that that is not so, let him look at this advertisement that I have in my hand. It shows a picture of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) with a cross, as if done with a tar brush, right across his face. This advertisement appeared in the Melbourne “ Age “ of Thursday, 28th November, just before the election. I do not blame Labour members of this House for this advertisement. In one corner of this despicable advertisement is a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). I do not blame him for it either. But somebody is to blame for this propaganda.

If a vote were taken in Australia or throughout the world, the Prime Minister would be acclaimed by the majority of people as the greatest statesman that Australia has ever produced.

Mr Peters:

– He would get your vote.


– He would get the votes of the general public as the greatest statesman that Australia has produced. He has been honoured by the Queen. He is a Knight of the Thistle. Many other honours have been conferred upon him. I cannot understand why the Labour Party allowed this advertisement to be published.

Mr Peters:

– What is wrong with it?


– Every decent man, woman and child in Australia would say that it is despicable. I tried to find out who was responsible for it. I am sure that the Labour Party in any State other than Victoria would not stand for it. Right down in one corner are some words in very small print. One almost needs a magnifying glass to see them. I am sure that no one in this chamber could read them without glasses. In the smallest possible print are these words: “ Authorized by C. S. Wyndham, Trades Hall, Melbourne”. It looks as if he was justifiably embarrassed and ashamed at having to authorize the advertisement. I understand that this advertisement is the result of Labour employing some organization to do its publicity work.

I suggest in the kindest possible way that the Labour Party should do two things, one inside this Parliament and one outside. Outside, the Labour Party should never again deal with the people who supplied this advertisement. If the person responsible belongs to the party, the party should get rid of him at once because if I had been one of the swinging voters in this country who had not decided until that time whether to vote for Labour or for the present Government, after seeing the advertisement I would have decided that I would not vote for Labour for the next 50 years. This thing has boomer.anged against Labour. The Australian Labour Party has been trying to find out why it was beaten. One thing that contributed to its defeat was that people saw this despicable kind of advertisement and said, “ We would not like to have representing us in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of

Australia any party which would lend itself to this low form of advertising in a bid to become the Government “. I do not blame the Leader of the Opposition, because I do not think he had anything to do with the advertisement. I think that his photograph was inserted in the advertisement because he was just a stooge on this occasion.

Now I want to tell the Labour Party what I think should be done inside the Parliament and if any honorable members opposite do not agree with what I am about to say I should like them to say so. I think that the Australian Labour Party should make a public apology in this House to the Prime Minister. Labour members can support the advertising to which I have referred if they wish to do so. If they claim that it is good advertising and the kind of advertising that they favour, that is their concern. We shall know where they stand. But the Labour men I know would not stand for this kind of thing. Would the honorable member for Gellibrand (Mr. Mclvor) stand for it? Of course, he would not! We know that. And the honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Fulton)?

Mr Fulton:

– Yes?


– Do you agree with this kind of advertising?

Mr Fulton:

– What is wrong with it?


– I know that the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Minogue), the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), a man of character, would not agree with this kind of despicable advertising. Does the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Hansen) support this kind of thing? Of course, he does not! No decent man or woman in .this country would support this despicable kind of advertising. It lowers the whole concept of political life in Australia and as such it should be condemned. And I condemn it this morning!

West Sydney

– I am delighted to have ten minutes in which to speak, although I would require ten hours to list the troubles that we in West Sydney are experiencing due to the actions of this Government. The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) .. eulogized himself because he beat a Labour candidate at the last election. He is now assured of continued markets for his wheat and wool. China will be his best market. In one breath he supports the sale of wheat and wool to China and in the next breath he accuses honorable members on this side of the House of being “ Corns “ and supporters of Communist China. That has been his attitude during the last six years.

The people I represent and about whom I shall speak to-day have been deprived of a full meal and of woollen clothing while these commodities have been sold to China. In the electorate of West Sydney 5,000 or 6,000 pensioners have been ignored by the Government and by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton), who is conspicuous by his absence from the chamber this morning. I guarantee to the Minister that he can select any day during the next two weeks and I shall make the Sydney Town Hall available to him so that he can explain his treatment of the pensioners whom he has robbed for the past three years. In that time we have had two elections and have been presented with three Budgets, but the pensioners who have served this country well and who have reared families to send to the war to fight for the capitalist class have been ignored. The Government is more concerned about shipping our wheat and wool to China than it is about feeding and clothing these people who so richly deserve assistance. Were it not for the Sydney City Mission, were it not for the St. Vincent de Paul Society and were it not for the Salvation Army, thousands of people in Sydney would be sleeping in parks and dying of hunger. Is that right in a country like this? We talk, and rightly so, about helping to feed and clothe the people of all nations who are cold and hungry, but we deny those things to our own people. In 1955 this Government introduced a means test on pensioners. If a pensioner earned £2 a week he was not permitted to hold a medical card. Without a medical card can a sick pensioner afford to telephone a doctor who will charge £2 for a visit and can he afford to pay £1 or even 5s. to the chemist for a bottle of medicine? The Government knows full well that he cannot, but it still has deprived him of the medical card and of any chance of living. This Government’s slogan so far as pensioners are concerned is, “ The sooner you die the better, because we have provided £10 with which to bury you “. The Government should be ashamed of itself.

There is plenty of work in Sydney at present for an able-bodied man but there is none for the man who is fit only for light duties. In each electorate the Government has set up a Commonwealth Employment Office, but when men go to the office seeking light work they find that none is available. Then they go to the Department of Social Services seeking assistance to get a job. Again they are unsuccessful, so their next step is unemployment relief. Unless they call at the office every two weeks and ask five or six employers for a job they receive no consideration at all. So what do they do? They come to their federal member with their tale of woe. On one occasion I rang the Minister about a certain case and I was told: “ Do you know that this man has a record? Do you know that he has been in gaol so many times? Do you know this, that and the other thing? “ I said: “ What the hell do I care if he was in gaol! This man is hungry and it is up to the Government to do something for him “. The Government places on the member of Parliament the duty of obtaining a job for his constituent, although there are various agencies which should do so. If these agencies cannot find suitable jobs, some provision should be made for the unemployed. I hope that something will be done for these people.

As I have said, we have had two elections and have been presented with three Budgets in the last three years, but married pensioners have received not one penny increase in their pensions. Do you mean to tell me that the 5,000 or 6,000 pensioners in West Sydney have homes such as those described by the Minister? How hypocritical it is for the Minister to say that these pensioners receive £10 10s. a week and can earn £7 a week so that their total income is £17 10s. a week. At least 65 per cent, of pensioners are not earning, and cannot earn, one penny piece. Yet we hear Ministers in this House flaunting their good deeds, telling us that they are giving married couples who are pensioners £10 10s. a week and allowing them to earn another £7 a week.

Many of these people who receive £5 5s. a week have to pay at least half of it for a room. They walk along the streets and see all the produce of this country in shop windows. They see eggs and apples and other kinds of fruit, but they cannot buy one apple or one egg. I give credit to the Lord Mayor and the City Council of Sydney for building an amenities block which will be opened in about three weeks’ time where 100 pensioners will get a meal every day for a charge of 2s. a meal. The City Council has spent £60,000 on this project. Yet we hear certain hypocritical members of the council complaining that four or five councillors are being sent overseas. They tell us that this is a scandal and a waste of money. These council members who complain are business people who send their buyers and other representatives overseas every three months, or even more frequently, to find out how they can make more profits. Yet we find the newspapers condemning the City Council out of hand because a delegation of Labour members has gone overseas for four or five weeks. Everybody knows very well that these men will bring back something of benefit to the people of Sydney.

Let me remind the House of what is being done in Sydney with the meals-on-wheels scheme. The Lord Mayor of Sydney is doing a very fine job, and the sooner the Commonwealth Government recognizes the needs of the unfortunate people who are being assisted by schemes of that kind the better. Eight or ten years ago, the basic wage was a good deal less than it is now. 1 think it was only £6 8s. a week in 1949. How could a couple raising a family buy a house on that money? In Pyrmont there are, perhaps, 200 pensioners whose cases I have pleaded in an attempt to get them something more than the base pension rate. Not 2 per cent, of them would have any interest in property or other capital assets. Yet they have been told that they will have to live on the £5 5s. a week. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We see wages rising in every government department, while pensions remain at a low level. If there are two single pensioners living in a house they can get an extra £1 a week - and good luck to them. But they are that much better off than a struggling couple in another house who might, ‘ in addition to their other woes, be afflicted1 with illness. If they are lucky enough to have a medical card they can have a doctor attend to them. But I can tell honorable members that a doctor came to me the other day and told me that he had been refused payment by the Department of Social Services for certain treatment because he had visited the pensioner concerned too often. Many of these pensioners are unable to get out of their beds but the Government will not allow them adequate medical treatment.


– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Personal Explanation


– Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Turnbull:

– Yes - by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Minogue). At the start of his speech the honorable member said that I had advocated more and more sales of Australian wheat to China. My attitude on this question is very clear. What I have said is that while we sell wheat to China we must keep full supplies for our traditional customers and that sales to China are made to prevent the wheat from rotting in the silos.

East Sydney

– This being Grievance Day, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to place before the House the grievances of the returned servicemen’s organizations of Australia. Over a period of many years the State branches of the Returned Servicemen’s League have complained to their national executive of the repeated failure of repatriation tribunals to observe the provisions of section 47 of the Repatriation Act, and particularly those provisions of the section relating to onus of proof. The national executive made representations to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Swartz) who, after much bickering, finally decided to establish a committee of inquiry consisting of two members of the Repatriation Commission, including the commissioner himself, the principal medical officer and two other senior officers to investigate the complaints. I am not questioning the integrity of this committee, many members of which would be ex-servicemen, but I do suggest that it would be difficult to regard as impartial a committee the members of which were drawn from the commission and Che department under criticism.

This committee conducted an inquiry, and many cases were presented to it by the returned servicemen’s organizations. The findings of the committee were placed before the Minister, who issued a statement to the effect that the determining authorities could not find any evidence to support the claims. He said, “ I can find no reason for the belief that this committee did not have regard to the provisions of section 47 of the act “. This was the only possible result of any inquiry by such a committee, lt was a case of Caesar sitting in judgment on Caesar. It was an unfairly constituted committee. It should have included at least one member of the returned servicemen’s organizations and it should have been presided over by an independent chairman.

It is the Government’s responsibility to protect the interests of ex-servicemen who answered the call of their country and who are well remembered for their exploits at Gallipoli, in France, the Middle East, Malaya, Singapore, Netherlands New Guinea and numerous other theatres, on land, on the sea and in the air. Now they have called, through the national executive of the Returned Servicemen’s League, for a democratic inquiry into the operation of section 47 of the Repatriation Act. When these men were called they answered that call. Now they are calling on the Government for action and it is up to the Government to answer that call and to establish an independent committee to conduct an inquiry to the full satisfaction of returned servicemen all over Australia. Has the Government something to hide? Is it afraid of the truth? It should remove any ground for misgiving concerning the administration of the Repatriation Department and the implementation of the act.

On every occasion on which the Labour Party in this chamber has submitted amendments to the Repatriation Act, at the request of returned servicemen’s organizations, Government supporters, many of whom wear the emblems of these .ex-servicemen’s organizations, have, voted against those,-, amendments. They have shown no interest in the welfare of the ex-digger. They appear reluctant to lift a finger to help him. I ask the Minister to lay on the table the report of the committee to which I referred earlier, so that it can be studied by honorable members. In conclusion I suggest that the Government should accede to the request of the returned servicemen’s organizations and arrange for an independent inquiry.

Northern Territory

– I wish to comment on a statement made by the Minister for National Development (Senator Sir William Spooner) in another place, concerning the establishment of a division within the Department of National Development to co-ordinate and implement developmental projects in northern Australia. Tho scheme outlined by the Minister falls far short of what the Labour Party believes is required to carry out this tremendous national task of development in the north. We feel that nothing short of a separate authority would be capable of doing the job efficiently and well. The Minister has told us that the Government will set up a division within the department, and we feel strongly that this is a wrong approach.

I want to comment on certain aspects of the Minister’s statement. Only time will tell, of course, whether the Government’s decision was right or wrong. Only time will tell whether it will be completely successful or whether it will achieve any results at all.

The Minister went to some pains to outline the project from the Government’s point of view. In doing so he filled six pages of “ Hansard “ with his words. The Northern Territory is the part of the north that I represent and I am concerned at the very little mention of the Northern Territory made by the Minister. It was a striking feature of his speech that he placed great emphasis on what the Commonwealth had done to make funds available to Queensland and Western Australia for development projects. He included in “ Hansard “ a table setting out the amount of money allocated for the particular works. Funds amounting to about £48,000,000 were allocated to those States. The Minister did not say over what period the expenditure, would be incurred, but. lt, is a very small amount if it is taken over a’ period of, “say, five years.

It is totally inadequate for the work that is required to be done in Queensland and Western Australia. No reference was made by the Minister to the expenditure to take place in the Northern Territory, or even to the expenditure that had been incurred there. Certainly some work has been undertaken there but if the expenditure involved were placed alongside the sums of money granted to the States for their developmental programmes the Commonwealth Government would be shown up in a very bad light. The Commonwealth has an indirect responsibility to the States but to the Northern Territory it has a direct responsibility. That is why we think that in regard to developmental expenditure the Commonwealth Government is prone to take into consideration political aspects and not the needs of the respective areas.

It is significant that the Government has never announced a long-range policy for the development of the Northern Territory, or even for the States. It has not listed a series of priorities for works to be done. It is not until an election is due that the Government announces that certain works will proceed. I refer, for instance, to the Mount Isa railway and the clearing of the brigalow country in Queensland, and to the Ord River scheme and the railway gauge standardization work in Western Australia. These works were not announced as part of a long-range policy but were announced just before elections. That has happened time after time.

We doubt whether the Government seriously intends to put in train a longrange policy for development. Because of my sad experience I feel that when the Government announces its intention to set up a division of the Department of National Development to deal with the north our fate in the Northern Territory will be much the same as it was when we had a division of the Department of the Interior dealing with that territory, and that was only ten years ago. As a result of pressure on the Government by myself and organizations it was forced to agree that the development taking place under such a system was so barren of results that a separate department should be created. To-day, the Department of Territories administers all the Territories. We considered at that time that there .should be created a department to deal solely with the. Northern Territory and that the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and other Territories should be regarded separately. We still adhere to that view. We have found in the past that the results for the Northern Territory from a divided administration have been nil. Yet the Government is now introducing the same system. History is to repeat itself and the developmental needs of the north are to be dealt with again by only a part of a department. They are again to be dealt with by a very small cog in a vast machine - in this case a small cog in the machine of the Department of National Development.

There will be no teeth in the division that is to be created. It will be just a captive division in a huge organization. Because of our experiences we fear the results of this decision. We say that the only real way to tackle the problem is to create a separate authority. We have seen the beneficial results obtained by the Snowy Mountains Authority and we know that the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia agree that a separate department should be created to deal with northern development. A long-term policy must be drawn up and funds committed to implement it. In the scheme envisaged there is no provision for such a process. The division will examine the reports already in existence, consider them and report to the Government. Have not the officers of the Department of Territories been doing that in respect of the Northern Territory for the last fourteen years? What heed has been taken of the advice of these officers?

Mr Luchetti:

– None.


– None at all. The division to be created will submit its advice and unless there is a complete change of heart on the part of the Government no worth-while action will result. The Minister for National Development has not mentioned a long-term plan, nor has he mentioned that funds will be committed to implement such a plan. We feel that any advice tendered to the Government will be subordinated to the needs of short-term commitments entered into by the Government. Northern development will get the crumbs of the cake to be cut up at Budget time. There is a great need for development but the only development that will go on will be spasmodic. There will be no longterm planning and no heed taken of longterm requirements. Urgency is the keynote of development in the north. It has to be done quickly.

Under the present set-up no urgent works can be carried out. If the Government were to say, “ We will draw up a system of priorities of development. We will commit funds for a period of twenty years “ and if an authority vested with the responsibility of implementing such a programme were assured that the annual grants necessary for the work would be forthcoming, the position would be vastly different. No worth-while development will take place now. The need is urgent. The people are willing to provide the funds. There has been no dispute and no lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Australian taxpayers about financing a scheme for the development of the north. The people know how vital this is to their own survival. One has only to cast his eyes to the north to realize how important and urgent is the problem of northern development and how quickly the sands of time are running out.


, - I would like to use the time remaining for this debate to support the case presented this morning by my colleague the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Devine). He referred to a committee set up by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Swartz) through the Repatriation Department to investigate a matter that had been brought to its attention by the federal executive of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. That committee was to consider section 47 of the Repatriation Act. This section is well known to honorable members in this House. It is not the first time this matter has been raised here and indeed it has been the subject of debate in this Parliament on numerous occasions. There has been a widespread feeling among ex-servicemen’s organizations generally that section 47 of the Repatriation Act - the onus of proof provision - has not been applied in the way the act originally was intended to apply. The federal executive of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia therefore selected a number of cases which it felt had some bearing on this matter and submitted them to the Repatria-

page 675


F.2364/64. - R. - P<&#62;]

tion Department. It suggested that in each of these cases the onus of proof provision had not been applied.

No one doubts the integrity of the Minister for Repatriation in these matters, and certainly no one doubts the integrity of the committee set up by the Repatriation Department. I agree with the honorable member for East Sydney, and I certainly agree with the returned servicemen’s organizations, that the Minister should, on such an important issue as this, have established an independent committee. As I said a few moments ago, we do not doubt the integrity of the Repatriation Department. On this occasion the department set up a committee comprising the chairman of the commission - who should have some knowledge on these matters and who has undoubtedly a wide understanding of section 47 of the act - the chief medical officer and two other experienced officers of the Repatriation Department. We believe - and I know this opinion is shared generally by the returned servicemen’s organizations - that the committee should have had on it at least one independent member, not necessarily as chairman, outside the control of the Repatriation Department; a member who also had considerable experience of the operation of section 47.

It is well known that this committee gave every consideration to cases submitted to it. It deliberated on these matters and arrived at certain conclusions. The Minister then said that he accepted the committee’s findings and believed that in all the cases the onus of proof had been applied. I submit that if an independent committee had considered each of these cases the answer might have been entirely different. I am not suggesting that the result would have been different, but it might have been different and it might have affected one of these cases so far as the onus of proof was concerned. We believe that the proposition that has been submitted by the Opposition in this House on other occasions, requesting the Government to set up a committee of inquiry to consider this important matter, together with other issues broadly affecting returned servicemen in this country, should have been given effect to by the Government. I repeat that we do not doubt the integrity of the Minister. We certainly believe that this committee gave every consideration to the cases placed before it, but we believe that here was an opportunity for the Minister to agree to the appointment of at least one member of the committee who was not under the control of the Repatriation Department. The Chief Medical Officer of the Repatriation Department may already have considered some of these cases before he had opportunity to re-consider them as a member of the committee. He may not have done so, but there is a possibility that he did see these cases before he sat on the committee. My experience of officers of the Repatriation Department is that if they make a decision on a case they are most reluctant to alter it. I suppose that is a failing of human nature. I suggest therefore that the case submitted by the honorable member for East Sydney has substance and that the Government should have appointed at least one independent member-


– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. It is now fifteen minutes to 1 o’clock and, in accordance with Standing Order No. 106, the debate is interrupted and I put the question -

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m

page 676



Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 11th March (vide page 487), on motion by Sir Garfield Barwick -

That the House take note of the following paper: -

Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 11th March, 1964.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr. Adermann)- by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) speaking for a period not exceeding 40 minutes.

Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

Mr. Speaker, as far as one can gather, the general public reaction to last Wednesday’s pronouncement by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) has been one of apathy; and the reaction of the Opposition is one of deep disappointment. The public’s apathy and our disappointment spring from the same cause. That cause is the vagueness of the speech–a vagueness amounting at times to evasion. Where the speech should inform us, it glosses over the facts. Where it should strive to direct and lead public thinking on vital questions, it evades the real issues at stake. It smells strongly of the lamp, but itself sheds little light. Certainly, the speech is not remarkable for what it says. It is remarkable not only for what it does not say; it is remarkable for the fact that so long a speech could say so little of real import.

In a word, this speech denotes another of the lost opportunities that mark the history of Australia’s foreign policy over the past fourteen years. For the history of foreign affairs under the Menzies Government has been an unerring succession of lost opportunities and mistaken objectives. On this occasion, the Minister for External Affairs had a unique opportunity to inform Parliament and the public and to set the standard of a parliamentary debate that would turn our Commonwealth along a fruitful and rational course. He is at last free of the encumbrance of another portfolio. The Minister represents a government which has just been re-elected for a three-year term. He holds the portfolio at a time when events abroad have produced a new public awareness of the great issues involved - a public awareness which is receptive of and responsive to intelligent leadership in these matters perhaps to a degree rarely seen before.

But the Minister has provided no leadership, and precious little enlightenment. It looks as if he was determined to provide neither. He suffers from the besetting sin of conservatives everywhere - a refusal to be frank with the people, a refusal to trust the people. How else could he have given us his travelogue and called it a major policy declaration? Without frankness, without trust, Australia will never be able to develop a rational and intelligent foreign policy. That means, of course, that we shall be unable to develop such a policy as long as a conservative government, with its dishonest and cynical attitudes, persists in this nation.

What is at the root of this Government’s failure to develop a coherent foreign policy?

The fundamental trouble is that, as far as the Menzies Government is, and always has been, concerned, foreign policy is an instrument of electoral strategy. The purpose of that strategy, of course, is to remain in office. The tactic is to create and sustain an atmosphere of fear in which rational debate becomes almost impossible. And the method by which this is achieved is by misleading the people not only about the nature of the threat to our security - where a threat exists - but also about our capacity to resist that threat and maintain that security. By this process, naturally proud, brave and independent people who make up a rich and resourceful nation are gradually reduced to a state of doubt and hesitancy, confused as to their true capabilities and fearful of what is before them, and a prey to the fanaticism of extremists of the right and of the left. This is not a pretty picture of what the future may hold; but such a development can take place. It will if the Government continues its policy of deliberately withholding the trust and honesty which a mature nation has a right to expect from its government, and if the Government continues to distort the nation’s values for domestic political ends.

We have just emerged from an election campaign which the Government claimed it fought and won on foreign issues. Yet in no way did the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) or members of his Government make any effort to advance intelligent public thinking on such issues. All we had was a trading of slogans which reduced great and complex issues to a gross and dangerous superficiality. The Prime Minister, in all seriousness, in a prepared policy speech, told his television audiences - told Australia. and the world - that a Labour government would mean that, our alliances broken, the Communists encouraged and active, the country will find that it has abandoned national security through alliances for a species of impotent isolationism. I notice that members of the Liberal Party of Australia cry, “ Hear, hear!” to signify their support and that the more intelligent members of the alliance who belong to the Australian Country Party remain silent. That farrago of malice came from an Australian Prime Minister as a considered statement in a document which was supposed to contain a declaration of his political faiths, bis aims and his ideals.

I wish now to refer to some of the specific issues raised by the Minister for External Affairs. He began with a reference to France’s decision to recognize the Chinese Communist Government. With unerring aim, he missed the whole point of what is at issue. The Minister claims that, in essence, France’s move has failed because she has not been able to achieve recognition of both the Communist regime on the mainland and the nationalist regime on Taiwan or Formosa. In a most remarkable twist of his argument he says -

Faced with the prospect of being told to withdraw its representation, the Nationalist Government felt obliged to act first by announcing, on 10th February, the severance of relations with France.

The Minister states a fact, but the correctness of his inference is another question altogether. The truth is that Nationalist China severed its relations with France. The inference he draws is that France was forced to bow to Communist demands and sever her relations with Nationalist China. What authority has he for stating that? The fact, surely, is that Nationalist China, by withdrawing her embassy, made sure that the French experiment would fail, or appear to have failed. If Nationalist China had obliged France to act - that is, to take the initiative in severing relations - then, and then only, would we be in a position to assert definitely that dual recognition is an impossibility. What the Minister does is to judge Communist China’s intentions by Nationalist China’s actions - a curious course indeed. If the French experiment has really failed - and I maintain that this has not really been put to the test - it surely is a matter for regret. But the Minister seems to take great satisfaction from the situation, presumably because it is thought to relieve his Government of the duty to re-examine its policy on this matter.

As to the general question of the recognition of Communist China, I want to say only two things. The first is that this Government’s attitude is an intolerable mixture of lack of honesty and of opportunism. Britain has a logical attitude: She both recognizes and trades with mainland China. America has a logical attitude: She neither recognizes nor trades with mainland China. The Australian Government withholds recognition but promotes trade. In order to mislead the people about the attitude of the Australian Labour Party, this Government emphasizes the first aspect of current American policy. And in order to obscure the fact that Australia is running completely contrary to American policy with regard to trade, the Government maintains that there is some definite difference between non-strategic goods, such as wheat and wool, and strategic goods. The Australian Wool Board, obviously with the blessing and imprimatur of the Government - certainly with the blessing of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) who seems to be the strong man in this Government - is promoting by every means the export of wool to red China, even to the extent of sending experts to help set up textile mills in China. Yet we find that when Communist China committed atrocious acts of aggression against India in 1962, the first and most important did Australia sent to her fellow member .of the Commonwealth, India, was £300,000 worth of wool tops and wool clothing. So what becomes of the Government’s mystic differentiation between strategic and nonstrategic goods?

The second thing I wish to say is that Communist China should be in the United Nations for the same reason that Soviet Russia is in. The Minister dwells on the now fashionable distinction to be drawn between Communist China and Communist Russia. The capitalist press of this country is full of these distinctions. The Government thinks that there are distinctions. The Minister alleges, correctly in this instance, that Communist China has committed acts of aggression. Has Russia committed none? Does the Soviet come to the international table with altogether clean hands? Nations commit crimes not because they are members of the United Nations, but despite membership.

The real question is this: Has Russia’s membership helped or harmed the cause of peace? There can be only one answer, and that is that it has helped. The Prime Minister himself has indirectly contributed to the creation of the fostering of the belief in the differentiation he has made between Khrushchev’s Russia and Mao’s China. I suggest that the cause of peace would be helped if Communist China were admitted to the United Nations.

When we come to the Minister’s treatment of the broader aspects of South-East Asian affairs, we see the real inadequacies of Government policy. This Government is caught up in a supreme contradiction of policy. It pursues a diplomatic policy which assumes that only military solutions are possible; and propounds a defence policy which assumes that diplomatic endeavours will always succeed. Its long-range diplomatic policy implies at least the inevitability of a military solution, but its defence policy requires that military means are never to be used.

The Minister dealt at length with the situation in South Viet Nam. He depicted, quite accurately, the course of Communist internal subversion there. But he does not seem to understand the nature of that subversion. It is true that the guerrillas in South Viet Nam are drawing aid of all kinds from North Viet Nam. But while recognizing the support the Communists in the south receive from the north, he should not blind us and should not encourage us to blind ourselves to the support that they are receiving internally. Every experience since 1917 proves that internal Communist subversion can succeed only if it receives internal support; and every experience shows that it cannot be defeated unless it is deprived of that internal support. That the Viet Cong is receiving support from North Viet Nam in no way alters this basic premise or changes the real needs of the policy to be pursued in South Viet Nam.

President Johnson has made it clear that an invasion of North Viet Nam is not contemplated. Yet such an invasion would be the logical consequence of a policy that seeks to destroy internal subversion by military means alone. The inadequacy of that policy was recognized by the Mansfield committee of the United States Senate which reported on the South Viet Nam situation last year. The question that faces us in South Viet Nam, one of the most important trouble spots of the world, is not whether there is to be a revolution. It is whether the inevitable revolution - for revolution there must be - is to be a Communist one or not. It is clear that the Minister is incapable of seeing or understanding the real needs of the situation. He said -

The constant goal of Australian policy in Asia is to see the development of strong, well-organized countries standing on their own feet and confident of their national independence.

But nowhere docs he state how he intends to help achieve such a state of affairs. And when he examines the difficulties in the way he nowhere states the real and vital ones. He went on to say -

We do not under-estimate the difficulties in attaining a stable region steadily rising in political and economic strength. Some countries are bedevilled by population pressure; some lack homogeneity and sense of national community; in some the Government writ does not run in the outer provinces; in some there are deep-rooted ethnic and cultural group differences. Many have tremendous problems of food and health.

I pause here in order to make the final point which the Minister stressed. He said -

The general requirement is for a strong and stable central government with established institutions for administration and security and law and order providing increasing standards of life for their whole population.

I do not think that anybody will doubt the accuracy or the validity of that claim. None of the ends that the Minister has envisaged can be achieved in South Viet Nam simply by a policy of military suppression of Communist subversion. Even if it were possible to suppress the guerrillas, the inherent revolutionary situation would still exist because the political and economic circumstances which make revolution possible would still persist. You cannot have revolution unless you have a revolutionary situation. That was a Leninist doctrine and it is a correct one. There is a revolutionary situation existing in South Viet Nam and there will be a revolution. It is our task to guide that revolution in the right direction.

The Minister speaks of the problem of pressure of population. Does he not know that in South Viet Nam the problem is pressure of population on an antiquated, feudal land system. That system will not by reformed by herding the loyal population into barbed-wire areas. Until and unless that system is reformed, Communist subversives will feed on fertile ground. Military support is necessary in the present situation; but it should be complementary to a wider system of social reconstruction. South Viet Nam presents a great challenge to American imagination and initiative, and to a lesser extent to our own. If America is true to its own history as the greatest revolutionary power in human history, then Viet Nam could prove decisive in the struggle against world communism.

What contribution can Australia make? Even if we thought that the military solution was adequate, it is clear that this Government would not be willing to play any substantial part. In its equivocal fashion, it sends token groups here and there, though at whom the token is directed is never quite clear. While this Government lasts we will always be the flea on the elephant’s back.

What we can do is to try to influence American policy by supporting those among the American policy-makers who wish the United States to seek purposefully a social and economic solution as well as a military one. We should recognize that there is no such thing as an inflexible American policy, above and beyond all change and influence. Official policy is the result of the opinions and decisions of a large number of people with varying views, and our objective should be to support those whose attitudes we think are more likely to bear the fruit of economic reform and social progress. To see the need for such reform and progress, to desire it and to work to achieve it seems to me to be the only genuine, useful form of anti-communism.

During the Address-in-Reply debate the Prime Minister expressed surprise at my statement that Australia needed an antiCommunist Indonesia as much as we needed an anti-Communist Malaysia. He wanted to know what that meant. In the first place, I meant exactly what I said. It is essential to Australia’s interests that Indonesia will remain anti-Communist. Secondly, my statement was meant to express complete opposition to the extraordinary pronouncement, if correctly reported, by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, to the effect that as far as his Government was concerned, it was only of secondary importance whether Indonesia was antiCommunist. I accept the possibility that Sir Alec Douglas-Home may have been misreported or misinterpreted although I notice, like his Australian counterpart, he is given to rather strange statements. But I also notice that, unlike our own Prime Minister, he has the grace to apologize when caught out in a more than ordinary piece of misrepresentation. He apologized for the way he recently misrepresented Mr. Harold Wilson, the present leader of the British Labour Party.

The aim of our policy towards Indonesia should be, and must be, to encourage and assist that unhappy nation to attain economic and political stability. Not the least disturbing aspect of Indonesia’s present policy of confrontation of Malaysia is the extent to which this policy is likely to undermine completely the Indonesian economy. From this point of view alone, as from many other points of view, it is in our interest to end the present confrontation crisis as soon as possible. I will not traverse here the history of that crisis. Nor need I repeat or canvass the policy of the Labour Party towards Malaysia, which, briefly, is to welcome its creation, support its maintenance, and help to defend its integrity against aggression. During the election, campaign, it suited the Prime Minister , to pretend that there was the widest possible divergence of views between his Government and the Labour Party on this matter. He tried, as I have stated often before, to divide the nation on an issue on which it was not basically divided. I contend as a result of that attitude by the Prime Minister that irresponsibility could hardly go farther. He even chose to find fault with my statement that an act of aggression against Malaysia would be regarded as a breach of the United Nations Charter, and would be resisted accordingly. I think he described this as a clumsy formula. Yet we now find that the Minister for External Affairs devoted half a page of single-spaced typescript of his speech to this very point. He concluded -

To place and maintain Indonesian forces in Malaysia is thus in breach of the Charter.

The “ clumsy formula “ has now become an integral part of the Government’s own explanation of its policy.

The inescapable fact is that the Government is making up its policy on Malaysia as it goes along. But its foreign policy over the past fourteen years has always been framed in this extraordinary way. The Government has always made it up as it went along. I used to contend in this place that the former Minister for External Affairs, the present Lord Casey - a gentleman for whom I have the highest regard and esteem personally - listened into Whitehall on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and to Washington on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday and then wrote Australia’s foreign policy on Sunday morning.

In October the Prime Minister decided to have an election, and in search of an issue hit upon Malaysia. Having discovered his issue, he compounded a policy to suit it, and then asked for a mandate for bis policy before anybody recovered from their surprise that at last he had one. By December, the issue had served its purpose, and for three months a great silence descended and practically nothing was heard from Canberra about the famous commitment. It is now precisely six months, less one week, since the Prime Minister delivered himself of his 125-word sentence of so-called commitment. He had to go 125 words before he got the verb into his sentence. There was no full stop in the whole 125 words, if I remember, rightly.

To-day we find that that commitment means £3,000,000 worth of aid over two years, which is just six times the amount of money it cost the Prime Minister to hold an election which he claimed was necessary to secure a mandate for his Malaysian policy. It is clear, therefore, that much of the Government’s embarrassment - and it is greatly embarrassed - over the Malaysian issue springs from the fraudulent use made of the matter by the Government during the election campaign.

But the real problem lies far deeper. Even if the Government really had a deepseated conviction about its policy, the question would still remain: “ How can such a policy be implemented? How can we defend Malaysia, when the Government insists that we are incapable of defending ourselves? Surely, nowhere in the world, never perhaps in the history of the world, has a government so deliberately and consistently written down a nation’s ability to defend itself. Certainly I know of no other government which has so consistently and deliberately tried to undermine the selfconfidence of the people it is supposed to lead, as this Government has done for electoral ends and for those alone.

The Government’s object is to create the impression that we are absolutely and uniquely dependent on our allies, and that any criticism of those allies, the merest divergence from what on any particular day happens to be the official policy of those allies is akin to treachery. The Government knows that the Australian Labour Party, having forged the alliances and international associations that have really mattered in the history of this nation, will never resign Australia’s right to make its voice heard in the councils of the world. And in this, which is the Labour Party’s glory, the Menzies Government thinks it has a key to perpetual power. If it can so corrupt our society by inducing an atmosphere of fear, of conformism and government-inspired inferiority, it believes that at each election it can appeal successfully to fear - not the genuine and prudent fear of the actual external threat, but a false and fatuous fear of independent thought and action.

What are the realities? They are that this nation has a considerable potential to defend itself against all threats, save that of nuclear attack, that are foreseeable. The measure of the perversion of values by this Government is the fact that when the Labour Party speaks of Australia’s capacity to defend itself, we are accused of having an isolationist mentality. It is, apparently, isolationist to wish to see one’s country able to defend itself against invasion. We already have great industrial capacity. We have enormous industrial potential. This is the basis of our defence potential. What is required is that we should organize that capacity - plan the use of that potential for the rational ends of peace and war. But there is no such organization, no such planning, any more in 1964 than there was in 1941.

Instead, we have a Treasurer who prattles on about a dream economy, a Prime Minister who never accepts responsibility for the failures of his colleagues, and a Minister for External Affairs who in all seriousness talks about “ strength through ambivalence “. Thus, the fundamental flaw in our foreign policy is the inadequacy of our defence policy. This is the basic cause of our wavering and hesitation whenever our allies seek our assistance or look to us to honour our commitments. But, obviously the current crisis will not wait until the Government decides to measure up to its defence responsibilities. We must pursue our ends by all available means.

The Minister has said that the question of whether or not the United Nations should be directly concerned in the differences between Indonesia and Malaysia was primarily a matter for Malaysia itself. This is all very reminiscent of the Government’s inactivity over the months of the West New Guinea crisis, when it constantly excused itself from taking any initiative by insisting that Australia was not a party principal to the dispute. The Government used those words on a number of occasions. The Minister has further stated that a great number of nations are represented in the United Nations and one is never sure at the outset what information each nation has about the dispute. Could fatuity go further? If the statement is true, surely it suggests a line of action which this Government should be following. We should be making every endeavour to see that as many nations as possible are informed of our point of view. What is the Government doing along these lines? Probably nothing at all. But let the Minister tell us; and if we are doing nothing, let him explain why we are doing nothing.

The Minister ended his speech with some imaginative prose about Australia’s role as a middle power. A more fruitful line of approach would be to see our geographical and economic role in the light of the new realities of world power. We are no longer on the perimeter of the world, although some people in Australia still fondle that illusion. We are a power on the edge of the Pacific basin. Bordering that basin are Ave of the wealthiest nations in the world, and all of them are our friends and allies. One of those nations, the United States, is both the wealthiest and the most powerful nation in the world to-day. That basin is also bordered by the most populous nation in the world, China, and the second most powerful nation in the world, Russia. The centre of world power is therefore going to move towards the area which we share. As a wealthy and advanced nation, we should now be planning to act in concert with our friends and allies for a massive assault on the poverty and backwardness of the other nations of our area.

Hand in hand with a combined programme of aid must go a realistic defence policy. Treaties alone do not guarantee our rights to allies, although some members of the Government parties think they do. It is only by demonstrating our willingness and capacity to fight in our own defence and to contribute to the common defence that the promise of help is converted into a right. When we make ourselves powerful enough to defend our nation, we have the right to stand on our rights and to assert before the world that we will fulfil all our contractual obligations. But until we are in that position we are fooling only ourselves; we certainly are not fooling our potential enemies.


.- I say sincerely that after hearing the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) there is hardly a man on this side of the House who is not a little dejected. We are dejected because, almost to a man, we have some respect and deep affection for the honorable gentleman. It dismays and distresses us to see him come into this House in a situation in which he is obliged to talk about the foreign policy of this party and to speak for 35 minutes and say precisely nothing. It grieves all of us to see a man at this stage of his distinguished career relegated to that role.

In making exuses for him, perhaps one could be pardoned for thinking that on one flank, which he has left exposed, stands a tall, dark and handsome man in his early forties, waiting for him to make a mistake by going a shade too far to the left, and on his other flank, also exposed, is a cunning young doctor of philosphy, also in his forties, waiting to strike him down if he goes too far to the right. But perhaps the most terrifying of all are the 36 invisible people and the 72 invisible ears that listened to him as he spoke into the microphone, waiting for him to say one thing which had not been considered previously and had not been put into his unhappy mouth.

What was in his speech? When one is to follow the Leader of the Opposition in a debate in the National Parliament, one is entitled to assume that that honorable gentleman will say something on which one can base some constructive remarks. I do not find myself in that position to-day. There was the usual slur on the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), who, without any question, is the greatest Australian who has ever lived. Yet time and time again-

Mr Cope:

– You will get on.


– I repeat that, and I am proud to say it. When the Leader of the opposition rises in this House and talks about foreign affairs, the first thing he does is to cast some miserable slur on the Prime Minister. Then, after that to-day there was the inevitable plug for the recognition of red China. The Leader of the Opposition picked out the one sentence in the speech of the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) which is challengeable because it is not supported by documentary evidence. I refer to the part of the Minister’s speech in which he said that Nationalist China withdrew its embassy from Paris voluntarily after General de Gaulle had recognized Communist China. The Leader of the Opposition went on to challenge the Minister and to say that that was not true. I believe that, in his honesty, he has been fooled by the 36 creatures who sit in judgment on him into believing that it is possible to recognize red China and Nationalist China at the same time.

I am indebted to my colleague, the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser), for a quotation from a Radio Peking news broadcast made just after the deal between France and Communist China was made. These are the words of Communist China -

It was with this understanding that the government of the CFR-

That is, the Chinese People’s Republic -

  1. reached agreement with the government of the French Republic on the establishment of diplomatic relations and the exchange of ambassadors between China and France. The Chinese government deems it necessary to reaffirm that Taiwan is part of China’s territory, and that any attempt to detach Taiwan from China, or otherwise to create two Chinas, is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese government and people.

That is the answer to the fond hope of the Leader of the Opposition.

There were other curious statements in his speech. Perhaps the most curious was one that he made about South Viet Nam. He said that the Labour Party’s task is to guide in the right direction the revolution that is taking place in that country. What a pitiful statement! One would have thought that this man, who has just had his party and himself brought to their very knees in an election, would have had enough problems with the revolution that is taking place within his own ranks, without wanting to start another one in South Viet Nam, which is several thousands of miles away.

I refer now to the Minister’s statement. This debate on foreign affairs is a most useful exercise for the House and one which is appreciated by back-benchers.

Mr Reynolds:

– Then why are you wasting time now?


– If the honorable member for Barton agrees with me that comment on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is a complete waste of time then I am very happy. As I have said, a debate on foreign affairs gives members an opportunity to present their views to four different important audiences. The first audience is the Australian people, particularly those who reside in a member’s electorate. Not only is it an opportunity for honorable members to state their views to their constituents but indeed they have a responsibility to do so.

The second audience is the members of Cabinet. Admittedly, honorable members on this side of the House have an opportunity to put their views to Cabinet in the party room, but a debate of this kind affords that opportunity to members of the Opposition as well as to Government supporters. We are also given the opportunity to speak to the third audience - the members of the opposing political party. The fourth, and undoubtedly the most significant, audience consists of the governments of other nations. We are given an opportunity to express our own views and the views of the people we represent to the governments of other nations. It would be a perfect situation if this Parliament could present to other countries a united front on foreign affairs of both Government and Opposition. Tragically, with the present state of the political situation in Australia this is not possible. In these days, when you have the sophistication of a division between the executive and the Parliament, the government of a foreign power perhaps could be excused at times for at least wondering whether the views of the Minister for External Affairs or of the Cabinet differed from those of backbenchers. This debate gives us an opportunity to offer our views to the diplomats and governments of foreign countries.

I take that opportunity to-day and I should like to mention only two subjects, because the twenty minutes allotted to us is not sufficiently long to discuss fully the complex issues involved. I should like to discuss Indonesia and, briefly, our diplomatic activities. As to our attitude to Indonesia, it is important that the Government of Indonesia should know what the people of Australia are thinking, and it is important that those thoughts should be expressed through the members of this Parliament. Speaking for myself, and I believe for my electorate, I state clearly that if the Indonesian leaders ever misinterpret the constant, continuous and genuine offers of friendship which we have made to them over the years through our Minister as signs of weakness, vacillation or unwillingness to stand up and be counted in a crisis, they are making the greatest error of judgment in their nations’ short history.

No person in Australia wishes to be wilfully provocative towards our new neighbour. I believe that there is a genuine desire on the part of honorable members and of the nation to be friendly with Indonesia and to engage in the opportunities of trade, travel, discussion and cultural exchanges with this new and potentially great nation. There is a great sympathy in Australia for the past travails of the Indonesian people. There is great respect for the gallantry of the men and women of that nation who gained their independence after being so long in bondage. Finally, there is a sincere hope in all Australians that this new nation will find the happiness and prosperity that it deserves.

As to its relationship with Malaysia, none of us over-simplifies the difficulties that Indonesia is encountering. We commend and support the nation of Malaysia but we also appreciate Indonesia’s problems. The Indonesian Archipelago, by its very geographic situation and its multitude of scattered component parts, is enough to give the Indonesian leaders some apprehension of future attacks. Indonesia’s emergence as a nation in its present form derives fortuitously from Dutch colonization. There seems to be no good reason why its widely spread series of thousands of islands populated by people of different ethnic groups should have bonded together and called themselves a nation, other than the historical fact that they were once all colonized by the Dutch. The very drawnout nature of the chain of thousands of islands and the difficulties of communication between them makes Indonesia a sitting shot for subversion and attack at any time. This also would be enough to make its leaders nervous, and on this aspect also we sympathize with them.

These then are their real fears. In themselves they might be enough to cause - I do not mean justify - the evolution of a policy of confrontation towards Malaysia. In any event, let us say that it is enough to set the pot boiling. Then if you add a sprinkling of Communist mischief to this pot - this sprinkling was in fact added in the early stages when the Communist Party in Indonesia, 2,000,000 strong, exerted and has continued to exert enormous pressure on Sukarno to implement a policy of confrontation - you obtain a fairly potent brew. To this already turbulent cauldron add the motivation of revolutionary activity which seems to be inherent in the Indonesian leaders. Indeed, as the Minister for External Affairs has said, they seem to want to adopt as a national ethos a revolutionary complex if for no other purpose than to divert attention from the chaotic and tragic state of their economy. After looking at this mixture you can at least appreciate Indonesia’s attitude without actually justifying it.

Members of the last Parliament were in the unique position of being members of a parliament of this nation at a time when, for the first time in its history, Australia joined its frontier with a foreign power. While it may have been a unique experience it was, and still is, a disturbing experience. We now have our nearest neighbour resorting to force to prevent the successful creation of the new nation of Malaysia which neither in numbers nor in military power threatens Indonesia. This is a direct breach of Indonesia’s obligations under the United Nations Charter. As the Minister for External Affairs has said, Indonesia has placed, and is endeavouring to maintain, her forces in Malaysia because her attempts to cause the disintegration of Malaysia through infiltration and conversion have already failed.

What comfort can a reasonable Australian derive from the assurances given by the Indonesian leaders that Indonesia has no intention or desire to cross into Australian territory? To say the least, the credibility of the undertakings is less than it used to be. This means that our position should be made perfectly clear at all levels - at the Government level, at the diplomatic level and, as 1 am trying to do now, at the parliamentary level. I, as a member of this Parliament, indicate that I would support the Minister for External Affairs in regarding our own territorial integrity and that of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and others as completely inviolate. If this attitude becomes incompatible with our attitude of genuine friendship, a collision inevitably will occur. All of us hope and pray that this will never happen, but if it does, those responsible for any collision should first realize that Australians occupy a high place in international esteem for their resolution and courage in times of hardship.

The mature Australian has had a sickening of conflict through two World Wars in a lifetime, and desperately seeks a happy and peaceful life with his neighbours. But his present mood will not permit any vacillation or appeasement in dealing with any foreign power that uses the stand-over tactics which all Australians despise.

In the few minutes left to me I shall talk about the role of diplomacy in this situation. It is sometimes confusedly thought that the defence portfolios and the portfolio of external affairs, together with the corresponding departments, should be regarded as being in watertight compartments. This is a philosophy with which I am sure few members of this Parliament, if any, would agree. One activity must complement the other. Before I go on to expand that theme, let me pay a compliment to the devoted band of men and women who carry out their extremely difficult tasks in the name of Australia in the field of diplomatic activity. The soldier, the sailor and the airman are certainly entitled to the glory and commendation that are bestowed on them, but I often think that the band of men and women in our diplomatic corps perform duties of unsung courage and devotion that frequently escape our notice.

In this field of diplomatic activity we have our Minister for External Affairs discussing and arguing and bargaining at conference tables in various countries. As Lord Strang once said, the three important requirements in such a situation are, first, effective and available military power, secondly, remembered military prowess and, thirdly, sheer diplomatic skill. I believe that our Minister, our Prime Minister and our Government have performed their tasks with sheer diplomatic skill. I have already referred to the remembered military prowess of the Australian armed forces, and I shall dwell, in conclusion, on the matter of effective and available military power. I believe that when our Minister for External Affairs sits at the conference table, whether in Bangkok, in Singapore or in Saigon, tapping the table to make a point, he should be’ secure in the knowledge that he has the muscle - if I may use that term - or the authority, to make his taps heard and be treated with respect. Of what use is it for a man to display the greatest of diplomatic skill, or for him and his people to have the highest reputation for past achievements, if he has not the muscle - if I may again use the word - to back up his statements? If we have ordered for our bomber strike force the best bomber in the world, which will be delivered in 1967 and will then assure us of the best air force, plane for plane, in the world, we have given ourselves a marvellous prospect, but in my view it will not assist the Minister for External Affairs one iota in his bargainings and discussions between now and 1967.

For my part, I will be answerable to the people in my electorate. I commend the Australian Government for the strong attitude it has displayed in the South-East Asian situation. I commend the Government and the Minister for their tact and ability in handling a most delicate situation. I will support any move they make to strengthen the defences of Australia and to strengthen the hand of our Minister in his bargainings, no matter what the cost.


.- The speech of the honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Chipp) began with a caricature of the position of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). The statement of the Leader of the Opposition that our task is to guide the revolution in SouthEast Asia along the right lines was twisted so that it appeared that the Leader of the Opposition had said it was the Labour

Party’s task to do this. Every one who listened to the honorable gentlemen’s speech knows very well that he was talking about our foreign policy, meaning Australia’s foreign policy. He was referring to Australia’s task in guiding the Asian revolution.

The honorable member for Higinbotham apparently does not know what the word “ revolution “ means. He seems to think it is confined to street fighting, and there was a suggestion that the Australian Labour Party was advocating that it should guide the street fighting. A revolution does not simply mean a street demonstration, although street demonstrations, backed by the army, overthrew Diem’s regime in Viet Nam, as the Leader of the Opposition said. Asia is turning its back on stagnation and fuedalism and is looking for new goals. It is vital for Australia to try to steer this movement along the right lines. That is what the Leader of the Opposition meant when he referred to a revolution in Asia. It is a revolution in objectives - a revolution in the minds of the Asian peoples. The honorable member for Higinbotham dealt with this by misrepresentation.

The honorable member was angry at the reference to the recognition of red China. The Government of Australia, by allowing the export of 5,000,000 tons of wheat a year to that country, is a major factor in sustaining communism in China. How did the honorable member for Higinbotham deal with the inconsistency in Government policy to which the Leader of the Opposition directed attention? The Leader of the Opposition said that Britain is consistent - she trades and recognizes; that the United States is consistent - she neither trades nor recognizes; but that Australia, obviously for reasons connected with internal matters, and not unrelated to Democratic Labour Party preferences, does not recognize but does trade. The Government’s attitude towards red China is that we will have money and other people will have death. Genocide in Tibet does not concern the Government; trade opportunities do concern it. You cannot suggest that the whole of foreign policy rotates around opposing a certain regime and, at the same time, play a major part in sustaining that regime economically. The Australian wheat trade is enabling China to divert her agricultural effort so that she may increase her industrial potential.

Abuse of the Leader of the Opposition pays off politically, but it does not dispose of the problem of 700,000,000 people in China being led by a regime which this Government helps to sustain. It pays off, not because the Liberal Party has the wit to make it stick, but because the Democratic Labour Party does this for it. The honorable member for Higinbotham knows very well that this Government governs by virtue of votes that it does not itself win.

The statement of the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) was deeply disappointing. It was deeply disappointing because it lacked any vision for the future of Australia and for the future of our Asian allies. It indicated no responsibility to be taken by an Australian affluent society for an Asia greatly in need. It was evasive because it did not face changes in attitude developing within the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, in particular the changed attitude of Pakistan towards China. It was evasive because it did not face the military obligations that ought to be undertaken by Australia in South-East Asia. It was evasive because, although good relations with Indonesia have been a cornerstone of Government policy for some years, everybody except the Minister for External Affairs could see that such good relations were possible only on the basis of giving Indonesia everything that it wanted and on no other basis.

It is quite patent that Indonesia has nothing but contempt for the Australian Government and this, in the final analysis, is contempt for the complete lack of military strength to which this country has been reduced after fourteen years of the application of a consistent defence policy under one Prime Minister. Because the Government, with press support, can get away with the brazen effrontery of campaigning on the need for defence overhaul after it has been in office for fourteen years, it has reached the stage of believing that it can hypnotize the outside world in the same way. In the last analysis, it is not so alarming that Indonesia assesses Australia’s armed strength as negligible as that allies are coming to assess it in the same way. The warmest friend of the Government - Australian Consolidated Press Limited - is reduced to depicting in its special articles in the Sydney “ Bulletin “ a demoralized and disintegrating defence effort. If it is not the true picture, the Government has not answered the charge. Every day what we read in the press reinforces the picture. The proposed sending of £3,000,000 worth of equipment to Malaysia is an anti-climax to the picture of strong support and positive policy suggested during the election campaign. The Minister’s speech leaves the strong impression that the Australian approach in South-East Asia is one of trying to use the people there for our strategic convenience. The Government is permitting a vast economic effort to sustain one government in Asia - Communist China - which is buttressed by the export of 5,000,000 tons of wheat a year. But there is no inkling in the Minister’s speech of the needs of others in South-East Asia.

It is some years since James Michener wrote -

Most people in Asia will go to bed hungry tonight. Most people in Asia live in grinding poverty. Most people in Asia have never seen a doctor. Most people in Asia believe anything different would be better than what they have and they are determined to get it. Most people in Asia have never known civil liberties. Most people in Asia believe that freedom of enterprise means the right of the western colonial powers to exploit them. Most people in Asia distrust people with white skins. Most people in Asia are determined never again to be ruled by foreigners.

What is the Australian answer to hunger and grinding poverty? Is the Government campaigning with Lord Boyd Orr for the expansion of the work of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations and to revive the project of the ever-normal granary? Why cannot the Government sponsor mass training of medical practitioners and medical orderlies, even if at lower standards than those obtaining in our highly selective medical facilities? What does it believe should be done to create stable regimes which can concede civil liberties? Australia, unlike France, Britain and the United States of America has not ruled in South-East Asia. Indo-China’s succession states, India, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaysia do not look on us as former rulers and neither does the Philippines. We are foreigners to Asia but not suspect. We have a diplomatic opportunity which it seems is being forfeited because basically the exclusive concern of the Government is an affluent society at home. When the Government boasts of support for Malaysia with 600 troops, it is certainly not calling for any reduction of affluence in the interests of South-East Asian security.

Eleven years ago Lord Boyd Orr told me at a lunch in the House of Commons that Australian agricultural experts were his best men for the arid areas of India and Pakistan because they had highly developed techniques of dry farming. The main contribution of the Australian wheat industry at present is to sustain not democracy in India but communism in China, while the Government, for the sake of Democratic Labour Party preferences, mouths slogans about not having an ambassador in Peking.

The extent of India’s poverty is beyond the experience and imagination of most people who have not seen it. It is impossible to describe what such poverty means in terms of thwarted human beings and stunted lives. The most that can be said for living standards for millions of India’s citizens is that they are a testimony to the capacity of the human physique for survival. Some of the wheat going to China if diverted to India could feed a labour force engaged on capital development projects vital to the Indian economy, but there is no evidence in the Minister’s statement of a questing mind seeking such things. The whole gravamen of his statement, insofar as any policy is revealed in it and apart from the complete failure to preserve friendly relations with Indonesia, is the unspoken suggestion of a threat to the area of South-East Asia emanating from China. The whole economic policy of Australia is to strengthen the threat it regards as creating the need for a diplomatic and military insurance policy.

What is the Government doing to assist in re-assuring its Seato ally, Pakistan? From the beginning of the Sino-Indian crisis Pakistan showed a conspicuous lack of sympathy for India. Pakistan blamed India for provocation of China. Pakistan protested strongly against any military aid being given by the Western powers to India on the ground that any strengthening of India increased the threat to Pakistan. There is a clear need for a diplomatic effort to change relations between India and Pakistan for the better. We heard in the Minister’s statement nothing of the effect of the overturning of U. Nu’s Government and no evaluation of Burma’s new orientation towards Communist China. This is clearly important to the whole of South-East Asian security.

What is the significance, if any, of the resolutions of the Colombo Conference of December, 1962, when Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, Ghana, Indonesia and the United Arab Republic met to consider the relationship between India and China? It was a vital conference in revealing Afro-Asian thinking, but the currents of thought in Asia are ignored by the Minister for External Affairs. This is the position in a country where the press ignores Asian thinking and in whose Parliament we get very little revelation of it.

Some Australian students recently declared Australia to be part of Asia. They were corrected by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Hasluck) and repudiated by the press. But at least they evinced a warm-hearted concern which is part of a generous protest against the incredible nothingness of the Government’s policy.

The assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem revealed a state of unrest in South Viet Nam no inkling of which ever appeared in a ministerial statement. Diem was banqueted in this Parliament and hailed as a harbinger of stability and sanity in SouthEast Asia. In the next breath the Government was tumbling over itself to recognize his murderers. There is no doubt that finally, the United States desired the end of his regime. His military policy against the Viet Cong was regarded by the United States as too cautious and too conservative. He was reluctant to sacrifice men and money in fighting the Viet Cong. His successors seem even more reluctant. Basically the war is for one of the granaries of Asia - the Mekong delta. This area of 26,000 square miles is one of the most fertile in the world. The Minister’s statement contains no evaluation of the significance of what is at stake. The United States has assisted in the construction of 3,700 fortified hamlets for about 4,500,000 Vietnamese people. An additional 10,000 hamlets were planned for this year but now the hamlet policy is under strong criticism.

The significance of the changes in Viet Nam is in no way evaluated by the Minister. When Viet Nam was divided according to the Geneva Agreement of 1954 residents of each zone were allowed 300 days to settle in the zone of their choice. Of the 880,000 from the north who sought new homes in the south 600,000 were Catholics. President Ngo Dinh Diem depended heavily on these people, not so much because he and they shared a common faith, but because they were the most vigorous opponents of communism and in general were much better educated than other Vietnamese. The change of regime has brought about a lessening of their influence and it is profoundly unreal to lead the Australian people to believe, as much of our press seeks to lead us to believe, that the change means a great increase in willingness to suffer many casualties against Viet Cong guerrillas.

The Military Revolutionary Council in South Viet Nam talks this way: It has declared that its chief task will not be governmental politics but a powerful offensive against the guerillas. But South Viet Nam is badly in need of a regime which can appeal to the ordinary people of North Vict Nam, not merely by military victories but by sound governmental politics. So long as the Vietnamese people are engaged in civil war it is fatally easy for Communists to pretend that this is forced on them by the European or American foreigners for outside interests. Land, educational, health and social reforms are needed behind the military shield. What, if anything, is the Australian Government’s policy to further these reforms?

The Minister might have discussed the strategic position of Laos. As Burma recedes towards neutralist isolationism Laos becomes an easier target for a Communist take-over. If this happens, the western position in Viet Nam will be less secure and Thailand’s anxiety and insecurity will increase. In the past India was the leading advocate of the neutralization of the whole of South-East Asia. Now it appears to be France. Surely there is some need for a clarification within Seato of what it is intended to defend and whether such a policy of the neutralization of South-East Asia is consistent with the alliance which, after all, is quintessentially a declaration of non-neutrality. The Minister brought Africa into the scope of his survey, and this was welcome. The last occasions when the Government played an active role in Africa were at Suez and at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference on the apartheid question. The needs of East

African states for stability have recently been met by the United Kingdom, with token military forces which are sufficient to deal with small African forces in mutiny against their new governments. The basic cause of the mutinies appears to have been poverty and inability to pay the local troops a living wage.

There are terrible medical problems in East Africa. The most valuable assistance Australia could give to Tanganyika, for instance, would be to set up a first-class hospital, make it capable of being a training centre, and staff it fully for a number of years and finance it. As a corollary, the establishment of an agricultural college, staffed and financed by Australia, with special emphasis in its courses on the control of soil erosion, would be a valuable aid. Soil erosion is a frightening problem in Africa. The Sahara is advancing southwards on a 2,000-mile front. Australia is a country experienced in irragation, water conservation, reafforestation and dry farming - made to order for meeting Africa’s technical needs - but there is in the Minister’s speech no breath of how we propose to do this. I do not want to suggest that Australia alone can do everything. Is Australia engaged in any diplomatic effort to enlist Japan’s technical skill in this task? Japan’s 90,000,000 people produce more than all the rest of Asia together. There must be a vast amount she cao contribute. Why not an Asian periphery policy - joint action by Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all the food surplus countries of Asia, such as Thailand - for meeting Asia’s, needs? Gifts of food ar.e not a permanent solution, but they may help to sustain the effort required to establish irrigation, power, transport, communications and educational and public works programmes.

The key to Western policy everywhere is the containment of communism, but if Asia comes to believe that the West has no motive but to use Asians in an antiCommunist front you can forget Asia. The Minister for Defence would have been better employed using his skill to prove that Australians care about Asians than in proving that Australians are not Asians. If we do not care about the fate, the life, the integrity, the dignity and the future of Asians, we have no business dabbling in Asian affairs, and our dabbling will do no good. Sooner or later what gets across is your motive, and if our motive is nothing but self-interest, and we have the view that South-East Asia is a kind of strategic area inhabited by people with whom we have nothing in common, but who must be kept “on side” to contain communism in our interests, then our policy will fail.

Our goals for South-East Asia must be, first, military security and, secondly, to prove that we respect and care for the future of the people of South-East Asia. This seems to me to be far from clear in the statements which we make now. Thirdly, we need to stand unequivocally for the economic advance of friendly countries in SouthEast Asia to the extent of there being some sacrifice on our part. Fourthly, we need to give greatly expanded educational assistance towards training personnel for stable self-government and for social services, education, health, hygiene, transport and engineering. At base the cry of the Government of Robert Gordon Menzies is the cry of Harold Macmillan - “You have never had it so good “. In Australia the right honorable gentleman has a press which asks for no greater vision, but if this is all our vision, the policy will lead to disaster in our relations with our neighbours.


.- The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) made a very insulting remark about the character of the people who live in South-East Asia. He attributed to them a state of mind which they certainly do not possess. They do not regard themselves as pawns in a game of power politics. They regard the integrity of their own countries and of their own traditions as being sacrosanct, as being something worth defending against communism. They hate communism. They are in the front line, and that is the great distinction between the people living in those countries and the unreal people on the other side of this House, the isolationists of the Labour Party. The people in Viet Nam have been fighting communism for years. They know what communism is. They endorse the policy of this Government. They endorse the policies carried out in South-East Asia on their behalf by the United States and they would not want it otherwise. They want their countries to be protected from communism and the Communist hordes from inside China.

The honorable - member also spoke about raising the living standards of the Asian people. I welcome his interest in this subject. It is not often we see members of the Australian Labour Party showing some interest in the welfare of Asians. Certainly we are now supplying wheat to the starving millions in China, and also to Russia and to Poland. I remind honorable members that it was Lord Bruce who fired the first shot in the campaign which led to the establishment of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It was this Government which took the action which led to the creation of the Colombo Plan. It was this Government - and particularly my own leader, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) - which fought so consistently through the years for the establishment of commodity schemes so that surplus food will be available for the poor and starving people of the newly emerging countries. Now the idea of world commodity schemes is being taken up widely and is currently being discussed in Geneva. Not only ls it designed to bring food to the starving millions of Asia and Africa, but it is also designed to build up their export .income, because most of those countries depend for their export income upon the sale of one or two commodities. So we are not being selfish in this matter of asking for commodity schemes on a world scale. We are being completely altruistic. Finally, we have an excellent record - a record unparalleled in the world - in the admission of cheap manufactured goods from the newly emergent countries. Taken all round, we have nothing to be ashamed of in our dealings with the Asian people; we have a great deal to be proud of, and the work that has been done has been done by this Government and by its predecessors on this side of politics.

I am not an armchair strategist. I would not attempt to analyse the first-rate exposition of Australia’s position in international affairs which the Minister for External Affairs delivered the other night. It is proof - if proof were needed - of the wisdom of the Government, the ability of the Minister and the high degree of the efficiency of his department, which is reflected right through this document. I want at this time, to speak about foreign policies in general and Australia’s foreign policy in particular. There seem to be three essential ingredients in a foreign policy. There are defence, trade and a third matter which I call the principle of parliamentary democracy. I could use the word “ ideology “, but unfortunately that word has been kicked around so much in recent years that it seems to have lost any meaning.

Foreign policy rests principally on defence, and defence, as the honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Chipp) pointed out, apparently depends first upon the reputation of a country in the eyes of the rest of the world. In that regard, Australia has nothing at all to fear. We have a very high reputation in fighting for the things in which we believe. Secondly, defence depends on an effective striking force. We have a most efficient striking force. It is small but highly efficient and is being kept up to date. The third factor on which effective defence depends is industrial bases. As I said in another debate in this chamber a few nights ago, we have a weakness in this respect, because our industrial bases are concentrated principally about Sydney and Melbourne, and a sneak raid on only a relatively small scale would put those industrial centres out of action. This weakness is extraordinarily dangerous. It must have the effect of lessening the weight of our diplomacy around the world. This is a handicap from which our foreign policy will continue to suffer until something is done to deploy our industries and to make us more secure at home. I have said that our reputation in defence is excellent and that our striking force is first-class. But our industrial bases at home are acutely vulnerable and something must be done to ensure their protection. The only practical thing that can be done is to decentralize industry and population. That can come about only after constitutional reform and the creation of new States.

I now turn from defence, which is the first essential ingredient of foreign policy, to trade. The saying used to be: Trade follows the flag. It is certainly true these days that diplomacy follows the pattern of trade. So, as our trade has turned from Europe towards Asia, our diplomatic effort has changed its emphasis from Europe to Asia. Let me illustrate the degree to which this has occurred since before the war.

It is interesting to note that, whereas, before the war, the United Kingdom took more than 50 per cent, of our exports, she now takes 20 per cent. Before the war, Asia took 20 per cent, of our exports. It now takes more than one-half. Before long, our imports will follow a similar pattern. So it is important that our foreign policy follow and, if possible, anticipate this change in the pattern of our trade.

The final ingredient of a successful foreign policy for Australia is to be found in the principles of parliamentary democracy. We in Australia stand for certain principles. We believe in the rule of law both within Australia and throughout the world. We believe in governments, both here and abroad, being elected freely and constitutionally. And we believe in human rights and dignities. These are the principles that are adhered to not only in Australia but in all the parliamentary democracies, among which are to be found our friends. We know that these principles must be actively promoted against hostile ideologies and systems, but we cannot leave it to others to promote them. Nor can we leave the promotion of these principles to our experts in the Department of External Affairs. This is an ingredient of foreign policy with which they are not particularly well fitted to deal, and they should . not regard foreign policy as a whole as being a closed shop, as it were. They should recognize their limitations in this sphere and leave some room for the men who are most experienced and most knowledgable about the principles of parliamentary democracy - the parliamentarians - to exercise their own peculiar functions.

This idea may seem strange in Australia. It is strange in Australia. The thought that parliamentarians, as distinct from governments and the departmental experts, can play a part in implementing foreign policy is novel in Australia, but not so novel in other parts of the world. The old democracies of Europe have long since discovered the value of exchanges of parliamentarians between countries, and the new countries have now determined that these are worth while. The value of these exchanges is exemplified in the Inter-Parliamentary Union - the only body organized on a world-wide basis that provides a medium for parliamentarians to meet and exchange views. The union now consists of 72 member countries, and stages annual conferences attended by 600 or more delegates. In addition, under the aegis of the InterParliamentary Union, a great number of exchange visits of groups of parliamentarians take place. These visits are regarded by the more experienced countries as being most valuable and highly profitable. Britain, for example, from which we have learned so much in the past and from which we inherited our parliamentary system, has been a very active member of the InterParliamentary Union since its inception in 1889. Indeed, a British parliamentarian was one of the co-founders of the organization. Britain arranges a great number of exchange visits of parliamentarians.

In addition to exchange visits between member countries, there are now regional groupings of the union, which hold regional conferences at which matters of local or topical interest are discussed. One such conference has been held recently in Washington. It was attended by representatives from both North and South America. There is another regional grouping in northern Europe, and moves have been made, principally by Japan, for the establishment of a regional body in the Asia-Pacific zone.

We must promote the principles of parliamentary democracy, particularly among the newly-emerging nations - for their good and for our good. These principles must be promoted against a completely-opposed ideology, which is based not so very far away from us and which must be contained. For these reasons and because Australia has a particular geographical relationship to the countries of Asia, I urge the Australian Government to encourage the Australian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and to provide the means to enable this group to play a more active part in the work of the union by taking the initiative in forming an Asian regional organization. We would derive great advantages from such a development.

Australia has a particular obligation in this respect, because it is held in very high regard by the newer countries. Just why this is so can be analyzed or discovered by any honorable member. There are some fairly obvious reasons, but one of the reasons that I like most is that the officers of our Department of External Affairs have been most effective in promoting the Aus tralian viewpoint within those countries. However that may be, the fact is that Australia does have a disproportionate influence amongst the Afro-Asian group of countries. That being so, Australia has a special obligation to all the countries that practice parliamentary democracy to try to spread the principles of parliamentary democracy amongst the new countries of Africa and Asia. I repeat that the best way to do this is not by sending an expert trained and skilled in the ways of diplomacy to those countries but by sending parliamentarians who in their daily lives are actually practising the principles to which they subscribe.

They are the three ingredients of a successful foreign policy in my estimation. A successful foreign policy must be based primarily on an effective defence force. It must be based upon our trading pattern. It must be based upon the principles of parliamentary democracy to which we all subscribe. I urge the Government to take action to strengthen our hand with regard to defence, particularly with our industrial basis, and I urge the Government to take action to allow us to send parliamentarians to meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in the Asian sector of the world in which we have special and peculiar interests.

I deplore the fact that the Australian Labour Party has seen fit to continue to press for a foreign policy separate from that of the Government. There is no room in Australia for a second foreign policy. We must come together on this point. There may be a world between us on other aspects of government, administration and affairs generally, but on foreign policy I urge the Opposition to see some sense in the matter, to come to grips with the problem, to join the Foreign Affairs Committee, which it has refused to do for all these years, to learn something of the subject and to join forces with the Government in presenting a common foreign policy supported by every Australian. If the lesson of the last election was not enough for the Australian Labour Party, I am sure the next general election will prove to it that it is impossible for Labour to have another separate foreign policy for Australia.


.- The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Ian Amin), who has just sat down, made quite a few comments about Australia’s defence, and he connected this with foreign policy. He said that we should have a sound defence. But what has his Government done to give Australia a sound defence? It has been in office for fourteen years and what can it show for its efforts? There are 27 more men in the combined militia and permanent Army than there were in 1938, although every newspaper in the Commonwealth carries huge advertisements seeking recruits. I believe that we should have a sound defence force and a good defence policy. The honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Chipp) said that if we wait for another three years we will have the finest bombers in the world. We are debating foreign affairs and defence now, but the Government says, “ Wait for another three years “. The Government asks us to wait until it has been in power for seventeen years. After seventeen years it will say, “ We have bought some fine aircraft for you”. The very words of the honorable member for Higinbotham condemn the Government. I think it is high time that the Government altered its ways and made sure that this country is kept secure against the forces from without.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) spoke about Manus Island. He blamed the Australian Labour Party for throwing Manus Island away and not allowing the Americans to build up this fine base. I took it upon myself to write to the Melbourne “ Age “ and I gave certain facts, which were a reply to the Prime Minister’s allegations. Unfortunately, the “Age” did not print everything that I wrote. I quoted an editorial published by the “Age” on this matter. It was an editorial that cleared up the whole position, but the newspaper deliberately left this out of the matter it printed. I want to put this editorial on record so that every one will know what the “ Age “ said at the relevant time. In 1947, Field Marshal Sir .Thomas Blarney said that Australia was responsible for looking after Manus Island. An English admiral who came out here and the CommanderinChief of the United States Navy also expressed this opinion. However, this was such a hot question at the time that the “ Age “ took it upon itself to say this -

Frequent challenges to the Federal Labour Government for its policy in respect of Manus

Island … are ill-based, and while they may provide the natural ammunition for the political sniper, they do the country no good service abroad, particularly in the eyes of American critics.

The Melbourne “ Age “ conveniently refrained from printing the comments it had made when I drew attention to the editorial recently. The newspaper said further in 1949-

It has been reported on numerous occasions since the war that America wished to retain a permanent interest in Manus Island because of its military potentialities and its strategic position in the Admiralty group as an advanced base for a Pacific defence network. It has been claimed that America, which developed this fine island strongpoint with amazing rapidity during the war years, had offered to maintain it during the peace. And while these stories have had currency, the name of Manus has been bandied about by lowerlevel diplomats and politicians with little knowledge of the facts. “Dr. Forbes.- Tell us the facts.


– The facts are that Manus Island, as the Minister for the Army should know, was a trust territory. What can Australia do with a trust territory? The Minister knows very well that we cannot do with Manus Island or any other trust territory what we can do with our own soil. I am surprised that the Minister, with his high position, should interrupt and show such ignorance.

Dr Forbes:

– I just asked you.


– And I am telling you. The Minister should know. We look to him to make Australia safe.

Those are the kind of remarks that were omitted by the “Age” last year. In its editorial in 1949 the “Age” concluded -

Carping critics should, therefore, cease to cry over milk that has never been spilt.

I do not take any credit for those remarks; they are the remarks of the “Age”. Evidently the “ Age “ has changed its views on this matter since 1949.

I come back to the subject of foreign affairs. As with many other things, so too with foreign affairs. Different governments and different parties see things in different ways. I was very disappointed with the statement made on 11th March last by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) because he gave so little’ information about the real situation confronting Australia. The Government has told us that hard times lie ahead, lt has told us that our obligation to Malaysia will be honoured. In my opinion the Government is still muddling along. As the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Devine) said yesterday or the day before, this is a two-bob each way Government. There is justification for that claim in the fact that at this most critical time Indonesian Army officers are being trained in this country at the same time as we are training Malaysian Army officers. Are we showing to the people who are confronting Malaysia the way we do things? Are we showing them what our problems are? I do not know whether the Government is honest when it does things like that. The Government has said that it will go to war with Malaysia against Indonesia. But how does it intend to go to war? This is something that has always worried me. It is all very well to tell another country that we will give it a hand. But what will we use to give it a hand? The Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) knows that he is having trouble getting officers for the Army. Why is that? He should be the very man to tell us the reason. He is an Army officer himself - a man with a fine reputation. I hope that he will tell us the reason for the discontent among Army officers. I hope he will tell us why officers want to get out of the Army. I hope that we will not have to wait too long before the Minister gives us the answers.

During the last election campaign the Government condemned the Labour Party for stating that a clear pronouncement should be made on Australia’s defence and foreign policy. When the Labour Party said that Australia should have clear-cut and public treaties with other nations the Government said that it was being unrealistic. But Malaysia has seen to it that she has clear-cut treaties with Australia. We have no treaty at all; but Malaysia has.

I quote now from the Manila Accord of 11th June, 1963, which states -

The three Heads of Government further agreed that foreign bases - temporary in nature - should not be allowed to be used directly or indirectly to subvert the national independence of any of the three countries. In accordance with the principle enunciated in the Bandung Declaration, the three countries will abstain from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers.

That still applies. The Minister for External Affairs has never suggested that that declara tion has been revoked. Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines still have such an agreement in writing, but Australia has no written agreement regarding the use of its troops in Malaysia. The odd thing about all this is that Australia’s part of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve based near Malacca at the cost of many millions of pounds could not be available directly for purposes of Seato. Evidently our troops there could be used only in the present confrontation dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia. Under our agreement with Malaysia we could not otherwise use the troops that are based in that country. Tunku Abdul Rahman made this clear in connexion with the Laos crisis in April, 1961, when he confirmed that he had been approached about the movement of troops if war broke out over Laos. He stated that the troops could be removed altogether but they were not in Malaya for the purpose of helping other countries. He said that Australia could not station troops in Malaya and move them from there to a battlefront in another country. He said that if Australia wanted the troops it could move them for good. He said that Malaya was not a party to any war or power struggle and that his country was not available when any Seato country became involved in war. That argument would apply with equal force to Australian aircraft based at Butterworth.

This is why the Labour Party thinks there should be a clear understanding of what is required in South-East Asia. The only way to obtain that clear understanding is by treaty. In my opinion the entire SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization needs overhauling. Most member nations of Seato are not situated in the South-East Asia area. This is most unfortunate because Seato was designed mainly to deal with local clashes, such as occurred in Laos. When trouble first started there it could be called a clash, but it quickly developed into what could be described as a major war. I think Seato has failed. Of the eight member nations only three are situated in the area concerned. Honorable members know that those three nations are the Philippines, Pakistan and Thailand Indonesia, Malaysia, South Viet Nam, India and Burma, all adjacent countries, will not have a bar of Seato. Although Seato has probably limited Communist expansion in the area which it was designed to protect, it has done little else. It has not brought the adjacent countries into one big body. The likelihood of Seato acquiring a larger Asian membership is very remote. If Seato is failing the Government should admit it. I think Seato is failing. The Minister for External Affairs should tell us these things. I would like the Minister to give us his full views on this matter because it is a most important one. If Seato is not doing the job it is supposed to do, let the Minister tell us about it. Let him tell us bow to deal with the problem.

I suppose Australia’s greatest concern at the moment is Indonesia, our next door neighbour. I realize that we should do everything possible to help Indonesia. I know that Indonesia needs a lot of understanding, but this is a most difficult job for Australia. Even in to-day’s press we read of President Sukarno renaming Hollandia Kota Baru. Not once has the Minister offered any protest about Indonesia renaming the Indian Ocean the Indonesian Ocean, or renaming mountains in West Irian although that territory is supposed to be a trust territory and Indonesia is supposed to be looking after it in the same way as we are looking after the trust Territory of New Guinea. This is very important. The Minister is smiling; but in three or four years’ time, when the West Irian matter comes up at the United Nations, we will be told that no protests were made. There is supposed to be a plebiscite so that the people in that territory can decide what they want. These people are our next-door neighbours. I would like to see peace in that area. That is most important to us.

I was one of the fortunate members of this Parliament who went to South-East Asia last year. I agree with the honorable, member for Gwydir that a delegation should go to South-East Asia every year, but it should not be as big at the one that went last year. Such delegations enable people to see for themselves what is happening in that area. We met the heads of government in Indonesia. They were very kind to us although I do not agree with what they say or what they believe. We spent nearly an hour with Sukarno himself. He left a great impression on all of us. He is no fool. He is ruling with a rod of iron. If he is not told where he stands in relation to this country, we will be very sorry. He has set himself up more or less as a god. I want to read an extract from a translation of an editorial that was published in the local press of 6th July, 1963.

Mr Chipp:

– Which press do you mean - the Indonesian press?


– Yes. This translation was sent to me by the Department of External Affairs. Every member of the delegation who went to Indonesia received a copy of it. The editorial stated -

We consider it most important to give the widest opportunities to these representatives of the Australian people in their efforts to deepen their vision and knowledge of Indonesia, because for a long time the Australian people and Government have regarded Indonesia with doubt and suspicion. Furthermore, the people and Government of Australia have neglected the vast country which Ties between the Pacific and Indian oceans and between Asia and Australia. They have thought as if there were a vacuum between Darwin and London, imagining there Was nothing in between or overlooking the existence of Indonesia. With Indonesia awakening from ils sleep and standing firmly on its own feet, they have regarded it with suspicion and doubt.

The word “ they “ refers to Australians. I agree with that statement, but I say that we have had reason to so regard Indonesia. The editorial continued -

Moreover, they have not infrequently taken up attitudes which were somewhat unfriendly.

This is the main theme of the editorial and shows the thinking of this man Sukarno: -

Such a situation will not apparently be advantageous. For God has willed that Australia and Indonesia must have a common border, which now exists in New Guinea.

That is the way Sukarno speaks. He is so sure of himself that he tells us that God has willed that Australia and Indonesia should have a common border. In my opinion that is taking things a bit too far. Whilst I hope that the Government will be successful in its foreign policy, I believe that the Government has been very remiss over the fourteen years for which it has been in power in that it has left Australia in the position in which it is to-day.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:

– The Opposition opened this debate with a great burst of sound and fury, but the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Benson) has brought it back on to more level ground with not quite so much disturbance. The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) was very interesting. I think he ought to write his own speeches. If he did that, he would remember what he had said yesterday and have more idea of what he would say to-morrow. If he will remember what he said about President Sukarno after the West Irian dispute and compare that with what he said about Indonesia to-day, he will find that on the former occasion he was like the noble knight, Don Quixote, riding forth to tilt at the Indonesian windmill, with his deputy as Sancho Panza coming after him with a spear - and probably hoping that he would fall on the point of it. The Leader of the Opposition’s criticism of the Government was not very sincere and certainly was not a logical sequel to the speeches that he has made in the past. How his speech to-day will compare with his speeches of the future I do not know.

I could agree much more with several statements that the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) made, although I thought it was rather useless for him to suggest that Australia should spread its economic assistance into the field of building hospitals and agricultural colleges in Tanganyika or in other places in Africa when, as a small nation, in our part of the world we are doing our best under the Colombo Plan and in other ways to add to the efforts that we make for the security and development of countries in SouthEast Asia or southern Asia by giving them economic aid. I do not want to talk about defence to-day because I have spoken about it in the Address-in-Reply debate and on other occasions. Although diplomacy is the hand-maiden of defence and must work in close conjunction with it, to-day’s debate is more concerned with foreign policy. But I would not like anybody to think that I am quite happy with our defence measures at the present time. 1 desire to thank the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) for the exposition of world affairs that he presented to the House, lt was, as it had to be, very largely a summary of what had happened in the world since he made his last statement to the House some months ago. I was particularly interested - and judging from the debate to-day most honorable members were - in the sections dealing with China, neutralization as a policy of despair and, above all, his outline of Australia’s present policy on Indonesia’s confrontation of Malaysia. 1 am sure that those sections will receive very solid and enthusiastic support from the vast majority of Australians.

I do not know whether he is aware of the damage that certain individuals, who ought to be responsible, can do when they go to some overseas countries. Just before Christmas somebody went to a country which I visited recently. He had a perfect right to say what he thought, but he had no right to publish among his press friends the statement that the vast majority of Australians were not prepared to defend Borneo to the last Ghurka or the last Australian. That poison has spread throughout the Philippines and I met it again in a very heated controversy in a Hong Kong newspaper. I believe that our diplomats should be instructed to take action to reply to any Australian who puts false reports abroad when he is travelling. If a man has the ear of the newspapers and can get his statements published, many people think that his statements represent the opinion of the majority of Australians. After the recent election it was obvious that this man’s statements most certainly did not represent the opinion of the majority of Australians.

In regard to the part of the Minister’s statement which dealt with the Indonesian policy of confrontation, it is no secret to anybody in this House that I differed very greatly with the Government’s policy and attitude towards Indonesia between early in 1959 - when, at the time of the CaseySubandrio communique, I said that either we had changed our policy or I did not understand the meaning of English - and 25th September last year when the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) made a clear, definite and unequivocal statement to the effect that our policy was to support Malaysia against external aggression and against infiltration and subversion. Until the time of the Minister’s visit to Indonesia earlier in September, when I feel sure he told President Sukarno that Australia would back Malaysia against a policy of confrontation, the Australian Government had bent over backwards to try to placate and influence the Indonesian dictator. I wish the Government had been successful, even though I felt at the time, and said very definitely, that our attitude and efforts would probably only increase his appetite. However, the Government was not alone in following that kind of policy at that time. In fact, it followed American policy item by item whether that policy was enunciated by the White House or by the State Department. Unfortunately in my lifetime - and I suppose in every one else’s lifetime - those policies of appeasement and persuasion have never succeeded or paid dividends.

In South-East Asia and elsewhere America has endeavoured to solve many of the post-war problems of this world of ours with the very best intentions and with a generosity unmatched in history, but unfortunately on many occasions with an effect opposite to that which she intended, and very often with disastrous results. In Europe, America’s efforts met with considerable success. The Marshall aid plan has done a tremendous amount to restore Europe since the end of the Second World War. Unfortunately the Marshall mission in Asia, the failure to go on to the Yalu River in Korea - for which Australia, unfortunately, must accept some share of the responsibility - the so-called neutralization of Laos - I notice in to-day’s press that another assassination has taken place, this time of a security officer who was, I understand, a neutralist - and the policy towards Indonesia, have not been so successful. In an effort to solve these problems America has acted with the best intentions and the greatest generosity, but unfortunately the results which have been produced have been almost disastrous in some cases. I am firmly convinced that the recent mission of Mr. Robert Kennedy - I notice again by to-day’s cables that he still has some hopes of success, and I hope he does succeed - will succeed only if it is based on firmness and not on expecting Malaysia to make further compromises.

On 11th February, the day I flew from Singapore to Sarawak, Radio Malaysia broadcast a special report on the Bangkok meetings. This report had a distinctly authoritive flavour, and gave almost what cricketers would describe as a ball-to-ball description. The report concludes in these terms -

There was a feeling in Bangkok that bigger results could have. Iven achieved if the Americans had put greater pressure on Sukarno. Of course, they’ve been proclaiming that this is an Asian problem requiring Asian solutions, and they want nothing to do with it. But their close interest and involvement has been quite apparent to observers in Bangkok.

In fact, there has been considerable disappoint ment among these observers over the whole American attitude to this problem. The American Government appears to think that 100,000,000 Indonesians are more important than 10,000,000 Malaysians, and for this reason Indonesia is more important to them than Malaysia. The rights and wrongs of the case do not appear to count. American policy also seems to be based on the premise that Sukarno is the only man who can save Indonesia and the whole of South-East Asia from the Communists. For this reason, they are most eager to help him with American aid, but there is growing opposition among the American people to giving aid to Sukarno as long as he continues his war-like behaviour towards Malaysia. So the problem of the American officials concerned is how to persuade Sukarno to tone down his fierce war cries, and thereby ensure continued American aid to him. One way, of course, would be to placate him by persuading Malaysia to make concessions to him. It now appears that some American officials feel this should be done by holding a referendum in the Borneo States, even though this would mean an outright insult to U Thant.

This reflects the sort of American concern over the future of Indonesia which opens them to the kind of political blackmail at which Sukarno is an expert. It is a policy fashioned largely on the advice of their Ambassador in Jakarta, Mr. Howard Jones, who is strongly pro-Indonesia, and of other U.S. diplomats who share his sentiments. No one can quarrel with American sympathy for Indonesia in her present troubles. But must it be the type of sympathy which clouds moral issues and leads to a policy based more on what is convenient than on what is morally right.

As I have said, according to to-day’s cables, there appears a faint hope that Indonesia may be having second thoughts. We all hope that this is so, but there will need to be as well swift and corresponding interna] action in Indonesia because the Indonesian Communist Party has started on a four-year plan to double its membership from 2,500,000 to 5,000,000 by 1967. Although honorable members may be tired of hearing what I have to say on this subject - I have said it so often before - I should therefore like to read an extract from an article on Malaysia written by Alex Josey which appeared in the 20th February, 1964 edition of the “Far Eastern Economic Review”. The author states -

In the Four-Year Plan, party officials are “ educated “ in People’s Universities, Houses of People’s Knowledge, and League of People’s Knowledge. Marxism-Leninism is taught in them all, at different levels. All cadres at centra] and province level must complete a three-year academy course. The aim of the Plan is to double the membership of the Party and the Mass Organizations. Special efforts are being made to attract the peasants “ without lessening the efforts to recruit industrial workers “. Details of these efforts are not revealed.

On the instructions of the politbereau, Communist cells in existing mass organizations, such as the trade union movement, will be strengthened and a “ correct method ‘’ of leading them ensured. What is going on now in Indonesia fits into the pattern of the Four-Year Plan, and also into Aid it’s philosophy of constantly testing the PKI’s strength and popularity with the masses. There were no American flags in Djakarta’s streets when Robert Kennedy arrived. Instead, demands were scrawled on the walls that Malaysia must be crushed, that the Seventh Fleet must leave the Ocean which the world knows as Indian but which the Indonesians call the Indonesian Ocean.

The Aim of the Four-Year Plan is to produce five million Communists educated in MarxismLeninism. A sustained national policy aimed at crushing Malaysia, the PKI knows, would progressively increase Indonesia’s economic difficulties, thereby creating conditions most suitable for a Communist take-over, not only of the remaining foreign enterprises, but the entire Government. Crush Malaysia has, therefore, become part of the PKI’s doctrine. It will struggle to influence, and threaten. Sukarno by all means to continue Confrontation. Yet they must be wary that excessive pressure does not undermine Sukarno completely This could be disastrous . For, even if Sukarno is forced by world opinion to abandon or weaken his Crush Malaysia campaign, Aidit can still count upon turning out five million members of the PKI by 1967, providing Sukarno is President.

No matter how tempted he may be to make a bid for power, Aidit must resist any move which would force Sukarno into a position whereby he was left with the alternative either of Crushing Malaysia or Crushing the PKI. In Bangkok, Sukarno talks peace. Simultaneously, in Djakarta, Crush Malaysia remains the battle-cry. In these circumstances, Aidit must be very careful not to nudge the master of political tightrope balancing, lest the whole facade collapses. Or does Aidit feel he doesn’t need it any longer? That it is not necessary to wait until 1967?

In other words, we must realize the degree of control exercised already in Indonesia by the Communist Party and the influence that it has over President Sukarno at the present time. For these reasons, I think the Minister was wise and performed a most excellent task in putting before the Australian people the dangers that we have to face in relation to our next-door neighbours while at the same time underlining our commitments to Malaysia.

In addition, of course, we now have General de Gaulle’s change of policy, which I have described previously and have no time to discuss further on this occasion. If I remember rightly, in Dante’s “ Inferno “ there was a special compound in the deepest depths of Hades for those who called themselves neutralists. If those who support the Communist policy of the neutralization of South Viet Nam, which the Communists have been announcing over Peking Radio for the past eighteen months to my knowledge, have their way, we will be practically handing over Viet Nam to the Communists as we did with Laos.

I congratulate the Minister on his statement. I hope that it will be read by Australians. Perhaps the import of the situation could have been expressed more strongly but, as Minister for External Affairs, he probably has to be guarded in his language or be taken to task because, unfortunately, much as we all would like peace and progress, we must once again face up to a situation which is very difficult as well as being very dangerous. This is a time for leadership, for calm, clear thinking and close co-operation in yet another period, unfortunately, in which big power politics played by the Communists and General de Gaulle have created dangerous situations for Australia. This is a time for action. It is a time in which there must be no ambiguity of words with respect to our policy and the development of our defences. It is a time when old nations as well as new nations must realize that if freedom, progress and prosperity are to be achieved, we must be interdependent and not independent. We must cast out any ideas that freedom is divisible. You cannot strengthen your own freedom by sacrificing somebody else’s, as I believe we did in connexion with West Irian.

This is a time of testing, a time of challenge and a time of change. It is a time of unselfishness and of mutual economic assistance if we are to have security to-day and survival to-morrow. Nobody wants to scare the daylights out of any one and have a policy based on fear, but for goodness sake let our policy be based on realism, having in mind the facts of the international world of to-day. This is a time when Australia must turn her thoughts towards other people’s security and standards of living as well as those of her own people.

In congratulating the Minister, I wish him God-speed and success when he attends the Seato meeting next month. May I suggest in the most friendly manner possible that on his way to Bangkok he stop over in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, for reasons which are well known to both of us and need no recapitulation. The past has its lesson to teach, but it can be left to others to evaluate. Finally, let us remember the words of the poet -

I am a man the heir to all the ages past,

The architect of what is yet to be.

All of us in this House have, as individuals in this Parliament, a special responsibility so far as Australia is concerned, as architects of what is yet to be, and although we may differ as we sit on different sides of the House, I am sure that we will all accept that responsibility in the fullest sense of the word.


.- I am sure we are all grateful to the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) for breaking the silence on foreign affairs that has extended for three and a half months, and for giving honorable members, expert or otherwise, on this side of the House an opportunity to express their views on the Government policy and to offer some comments on the world situation generally. It is true that the Government was returned to office on 30th November, 1963, on a foreign policy placed before the people by the Government’s ally, the Democratic Labour Party. A state of fear was engendered in the minds of many Australian voters. Now we have an opportunity, three and a half months later, of expressing our views in, perhaps, a calmer atmosphere on world conditions as they affect this nation.

The views of members of the Government parties differ widely. The honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) reminds us that diplomacy is the handmaiden of defence. One of the leading members of the stronger section of the coalition, the Australian Country Party, tells Us that our foreign policy is shaped by three considerations. These are defence, trade and parliamentary democracy, the accent being, of course, on trade. So the position of Australia and its foreign policy becomes very confused because of the existence of the coalition Government.

However, I speak this afternoon not merely as an Australian who loves his country, but also as a northern Australian. The part of the world in which I live is the frontier of Australia. It is the part of our nation most concerned in the successful and peaceful implementation of our external affairs policy.

Whether we like to admit it or not - and there are members on the Government side who refuse to admit it - Australia is, geographically and in many other ways, a very important part of South-East Asia. As my leader made clear in his speech, South-East Asia is fringed by the most closely populated countries in the world - India, China, Russia, Japan and Indonesia, the latter country being the centre of the part of the world referred to as South-East Asia. I believe that our foreign policy should be directed towards the maintenance of peace in the part of the world in which we are most interested. There are some honorable members who adopt quite a belligerent attitude, completely forgetting the sorry state of Australia’s defence forces. As the honorable member for Chisholm has said, defence is the handmaiden of diplomacy. We have diplomacy of a kind but we have very little defence.

Just what is the position of the Government with regard to trade with countries in this part of the world? We know that the stability of the wheat industry in Australia has been maintained by the Government’s policy of exporting 5,000,000 tons of wheat a year to Communist China. Over the years, there have been some very severe droughts which have reduced the production in China of the essential grains needed to feed the millions of people in that country. Australia has come to the aid of red China in recent times by supplying enormous quantities of wheat.

I am reminded of a state of affairs that has existed in my own State of Queensland, the only State in which a Democratic Labour Party member now sits in a popular House. The area represented by this gentleman is the principal wheat-producing area in Queensland. During election time the people are most vocal and the parliamentarians who visit the area are most vocal, both in the press and on the platform, and they forcibly express their hostility towards trade with China. They decry these people who are taking our wheat as being almost devils incarnate. But as soon as the election is over they start looking for every opportunity to export their wheat to Communist China. It is rather peculiar that this area of the Darling Downs, where there is so much professional anti-communism, is the principal Queensland supplier of wheat to red China. I should say that the policy of this Government is power from the people at home by smearing the Australian Labour Party as the ally of communism, and pounds from red China to bolster the economy of the Australian farming community. It is true that without the sale of wheat to Communist China the stability of the wheat industry and of those associated with it would be considerably reduced.

Indonesia which lies, as all honorable members know, immediately to our north, has a population slightly in excess of 100,000,000 people. It is a dictatorship and it is adopting quite a belligerent attitude to one of our fellow members of the Commonwealth, Malaysia. The President of Indonesia and his leading ministers have not spared themselves in making clear to Australia and to the world in general that their policy is to crush Malaysia. We all know that we are allied with Malaysia to preserve its existence and to come to its aid should it be attacked. We also know, as a result of the visit of Mr. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney-General of the United States of America, to Indonesia and other countries in that area in recent times, that a state of undeclared war exists in Borneo between Malaysia and Indonesia. We see that from the statements made regarding the supply of materials and ammunition by Indonesia to the guerillas who are attacking British and Malaysian armed forces in Borneo. So we are very much involved in this position, because we are an ally of Malaysia for its own defence and preservation.

As my friend, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Benson), has made quite clear in an unimpassioned speech, Malaysia in its turn is showing base ingratitude to Australia. It has made clear that the bases that we have built in Malaysia for the stationing of our troops and airmen could not be used by Australia should the occasion arise when we wanted to use them to honour our obligations under the Seato treaty. This is quite a serious state of affairs. As we have a population of only 10,000,000 people, our position in this part of the world should give us cause for concern.

We know that in recent months our defence forces have been considerably reduced as a striking power. If we compared our forces with those of Indonesia, we should not sleep very comfortably at night. We know that Indonesia is armed with the most effective strike bombers that Russia can supply, while we in Australia have the obsolescent Canberra bombers. We know also that Indonesia has the most modern Russian fighter planes, while we have two Mirage fighters that are still being tested over Darwin to determine how they can be adapted to tropical conditions of warfare. We know that the Indonesian navy is very strong. It has cruisers of 10,000 tons to keep down the pirates off the islands of Indonesia; at least, that is what the Indonesians tell us the cruisers are for. We know the pathetic position of the Royal Australian Navy.

So we must hope that our efforts in the field of foreign affairs will improve, that our standing will be raised, and that Australia will be looked up to in South-East Asia more than it is at the present time. As a result of the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick), he has received a blast from Djakarta. He is regarded as the demon prince, almost as one who is going out of his way to promote aggression. I do not believe that. I believe that he is quite sincere in his efforts to maintain the prestige of Australia and to guide Australia’s foreign policy along lines that will make for a peaceful settlement of all problems. But while that is his intention, I feel that he is not succeeding in the countries to our immediate north.

Let me quote a passage from the “ Saturday Evening Post” of 27th January this year. This well-informed journal of American public opinion had this to say regarding the position of Australia and Indonesia -

How to live as a next door neighbour of expansionist Indonesia! That teeming nation with nearly ten times Australia’s population cannot help looking over the horizon at the continent’s invitingly empty regions. The northern two-fifths of Australia is inhabited by only 350,000 people. On the islands of New Guinea, Australians and Indonesians uneasily share a border right now.

Australia controls the eastern end and Indonesia occupies the western end, which it took over last May from the Netherlands. So far, Australians are reluctant to provoke Sukarno, but they feel they would have to honour their commitments if the Indonesians got out of hand.

That last sentence should give Australians food for thought. There is no doubt that Sukarno is a sabre-rattling dictator and that he has done much to provoke Australians in many fields. Australia is committed, by arrangement, to defend Malaysia should Sukarno pursue his policy of crushing that country.

Our ability to honour our obligations should give this Government much concern. I feel that our defence forces are completely incapable of doing what they are asked to do. Recent events have shown the position, to the alarm of the Australian population. Australia must cry out for more and more defence, and it must have more population in the northern part of the continent. Adjacent to Australia is a country breathing fire, wanting to crush a fellow country of the Commonwealth, and having a population of 100,000,000 people. It is right across the line that we would have to follow if we wished to do anything to defend our ally, Malaysia. This should cause Australians great concern. I hope that the Minister for External Affairs will pursue a line that will ensure that peace is maintained, even though it is an uneasy peace. As somebody said in this House some time ago, “As long as they are talking, they are not shooting “. Australia needs it diplomats to keep talking and its soldiers, sailors and airmen not to start shooting. Our only hope of existence in this part of the world is through the maintenance of peace. I hope that in the interests of all Australians that state of affairs will be maintained.


.- I am indeed sorry that my friend, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Coutts), has taken up the lament of his leader in saying that the Australian people were deceived at the last general election by the Government’s policies concerning events throughout the world. I regret it on a number of grounds, but principally because implicit within that ‘ argument is the view that the Australian people are easily deceived and were, in fact, deceived. I think it is taking a liberty with the Australian people to say to them, in effect, “ You are so incredibly stupid that you cannot see through the fear campaign whipped up by the Government “. I do not think this is the sort of charge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) should have made this afternoon, and, I say with very great respect, I regret that the honorable member for Griffith joined him in that lament.

What has been singular about the debate this afternoon has been the notable division between the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and the attitudes adopted by some of his followers. I will give a classic case in point. In the course of the debate on the Address-in-Reply, the honorable member for Yarra (Dr. J. F. Cairns), when referring to South-East Asia and events there said -

What is the possible nature of any apprehended attack? It is not something that happens in Cuba or Viet Nam. Where these are military matters and where they are more related to defence policy, they are not primarily matters for Australia.

The statement of the honorable member for Yarra is far removed from the clearly enunciated policy of the Leader of the Opposition when he expressed this afternoon what we all apprehended to be genuine concern for the tremendous events in SouthEast Asia. Who is right? Am I to understand that the honorable member for Yarra does not honestly believe that the disembowelling of priests, the mutilation of women, the burning of children and the cutting of the throats of old men in Viet Nam should not concern this country? Am I to understand that this is not a growing challenge to the thinking and conscience and sense of fitness of every person in this country? I would be a little bewildered, and a little frightened, if that proved to be the case.

One may disagree profoundly at times with the Leader of the Opposition but I thought he was near the mark this afternoon when he referred to the fact that Communist China right throughout SouthEast Asia is adding fuel to tremendous movements of both a genuine revolutionary nature and an artificial revolutionary nature. It seems to me that the problem is growing in intensity and that under Communist influence the whole of South-East Asia has become the primary theatre of international pressure and conflict.

There are two aspects of the problem I wish to touch upon. I respectfully disagree with the views put by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) as to the relationship between Communist China and the Soviet Union, popularly referred to as the Sino-Soviet conflict. I regard this as being part of the mythology of the age. I do not think it is over-stating the dichotomy to say that to-day the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has become more amenable to world opinion - whatever that may be - that it has become softer, that it has taken up a pose suggesting a change in its policies whereas on the other band, Communist China is to be regarded as tough and hard, following a cynical Stalinist line. That is approximately the position represented to the world to-day. As the Minister for External Affairs said in bis speech, “The immensely powerful combination of the Soviet Union and Communist China which for a decade posed a united threat to world peace, has shown distinct signs of disunity and divergence”. That there is conflict between Moscow and Peking I do not deny, but that there is a split between Moscow and Peking I profoundly challenge.

If the proposition is to be accepted that there is a split between Moscow and Peking, it must be accepted that the very fundamental on which the whole Marxist-Leninist philosophy and policy rest has been abandoned, because the fundamental of Communist philosophy rests upon the idea of conflict. This is the dialectic. It is because for the last ten, or even twenty years, there has been such abysmal ignorance and lack of understanding of the nature of the dialectic that the world finds itself in the circumstances it is in to-day. The most dramatic illustration of the work of the dialectic is given by Sir David Kelly, former British Ambassador to Moscow, in his book “ The Hungry Sheep “. Sir David referred to the fact that at the end of the war there was a mood of pathological goodwill to the Soviet Union throughout the world, yet within a short space of time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had perforce been brought into being.

This is an expression of conflict. Communists cannot and will not accept the idea of a static society. All things must be fluid. There must be conflict. Stagnation is completely out. People say that the Sino-Soviet conflict has arisen particularly because of two treaties - the Treaty of Aigun of 1858 and the Treaty of Peking of I860 - when Russia obtained from China large territories of Siberia and Vladivostock. With great respect to those who hold that there is a split between Moscow and Peking, I invite them to assess the nature of the split against the background of the Communist dialectic. If the dialectic is to be left out of it, if we are to reject the studied nature in which they go about the business of promoting conflict, I put to the House that the country is inviting great danger. Mao Tse-tung is a theoretician, in these matters. I refer to excerpts from Volume 2, page 20 of his “ Selected Works “ where he wrote -

If in the party there were neither contradictions nor ideological struggles to solve them, the Party’s life would come to an end.

That lights up their thinking in this matter. Mao Tse-tung also wrote -

Struggle resides in identity; without struggle there can be no identity.

Communists see struggle not in terms of dissipation or in terms of breaking up their strength, but in terms of moving from position A to-day to position B to-morrow. This has been expressed by Mr. Eugene Lyons, a former admirer of communism and a recognized authority on Russia. In his book “ Assignment in Utopia “ he wrote - “Dialectical materialism, whatever else it may be, is the smuggest and most convenient philosophy ever adapted by a ruling caste to its political needs. It finds a bogus consistency in the most startling inconsistencies. There is something monstrous in r. dialectical materialism which exploits in order to end exploitation, which flouts elementary human values in the name of humanity, which fortifies new classes to achieve a classless society; which, in brief, presumes to be as heartless as history, instead of opposing ideas, dreams and its hopes to history’s heartlessness.”

Finally, on the matter of conflict within the Communist society, I give the classic illustration of what happened in 1924 when Lenin moved from the scene. There were seven men running the politburo. They were Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, Rykov and Tomsky. When Lenin died, people said, “This is going to be a new age. This is a sign of a change in the system.” Within a very short space of time, six of the seven had been either assassinated or executed.

The second aspect of the position of China that I want to say something about is the question of recognition. I hope that some of the gentlemen opposite who insist on making rude noises when an argument is put to them, and who seem to have little genuine desire to grapple with the truth, will listen even though they do not agree with what I say; because opposite sit the protagonists of the recognition of Communist China. What is the proposition that they put to us? The proposition is that it is merely a matter of Communist China being admitted to the United Nations Organization. With very great respect, I say that that is not the case. If you look at Article 4, of the Charter of the United Nations you will find this in paragraph 2 -

The admission of any such slate to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

In 1950, the International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion on the question of admitting new members to the United Nations said this, amongst other things -

To hold that the General Assembly has power to admit a State to membership in the absence of a recommendation of the Security Council would be to deprive the Security Council of an important power which has been entrusted to it by the Charter. It would almost nullify the role of the Security Council in the exercise of one of the essential functions of the organization. It would mean that the Security Council would have merely to study the case, present a report, give advice and express an opinion. This is not what Article 4, paragraph 2, says.

The court concluded by saying -

For these reasons the court is of the opinion that the addition of a State to membership in the United Nations, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Charter cannot be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission, by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority or the negative vote of a permanent Member upon a resolution so to recommend.

The terrible dilemma in which the world finds itself on the question of recognition is this: Nationalist China is a permanent member of the Security Council. If the Nationalist Chinese Government refused, or, to- put it negatively, if it exercised the veto, then no recommendation could go to the General Assembly, and if no recommendation goes from the Security Council to the General Assembly then, even accepting the proposition that Communist China is to be admitted, how is it to be admitted?

To carry the argument a little further, let us take the position of the Nationalist Chinese Government being replaced on the Security Council by the Communist Chinese Government. I am not affirming that proposition; I am stating the difficulties in the hope that those of the Opposition who believe this to be a simple process may be disposed to change their minds. Any alteration to the membership of the Security Council amounts to an alteration of the Charter of the United Nations. To effect an alteration of the Charter of the United Nations calls for a vote of two-thirds of all the members entitled to vote in the General Assembly plus the votes of all of the permanent members of the Security Council.

So we come to the other horn of the dilemma. If you say, “ Well, Communist China is to replace the Nationalist Chinese on the Security Council,” your proposition then suggests that the Nationalist Chinese Government will be prepared to vote itself out of existence. In my mind, this is one of the tremendous dilemmas of this century.

To add possibly a little more point to the argument, may I refer to the question of disarmament in the world, a problem which, from day to day, is becoming more and more important. We have in effect at the moment a nuclear test ban treaty. The next proposition that will be advanced, no doubt, is for a ban on nuclear weapons. Assuming that the ban is accepted by all nations throughout the world, you then face the reality that Communist China is, in homely language, within coo-ee of becoming a nuclear power. Am I to understand that the Western powers vis-a-vis the Soviet Union would be prepared to enter into wholesale nuclear disarmament while at the same time allowing Communist China to become a nuclear power? I can imagine no more robust form of lunacy than to accept that proposition.

You may go beyond that and say, “ We will try to get Communist China to the conference table, to get Communist China to become a party to a nuclear ban “. But how could you do that? I have pointed out to the House the enormous difficulty of doing it through the United Nations for the simple reason that you cannot have any nation admitted to the General Assembly unless there is a recommendation from the Security Council. If Nationalist China, a permanent member of the Security Council, vetoes a proposal, that is the finish of it. If, on the other hand, you try the other procedure to trying to replace Nationalist China on the Security Council with Communist China, you then run up against the difficulty of getting the requisite twothirds majority vote of members of the General Assembly, plus the vote of all the permanent members of the Security Council.

I hope that nobody in the House will take the view that what I have advanced this afternoon is an argument in favour, first, of recognizing Communist China and, secondly, of admitting Communist China to the United Nations. What I have endeavoured to do is to point out the enormous difficulty of this problem, the frightening proportions which it is starting to assume, and the supreme danger that lurks in the background of general nuclear disarmament throughout the world while at the same time Communist China becomes a nuclear power. Looking at the ferocious savagery and barbarity perpetrated on the helpless, superstitious people of Tibet by the Communist Chinese there, could any one think for one moment that if the opportunity arose or the need was postulated by some circumstances, the Communist Chinese would fail to use nuclear weapons? I suggest with all humility to the House that the relationship of Communist China to the Western world in this depressing, overwhelming problem of disarmament poses a situation which will certainly tax the patience of us all and which, above all, will call for Understanding, ingenuity and a supreme sense of skill in the conduct of foreign affairs.


.- The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has claimed this afternoon that the statement by the honorable member for Yarra (Dr. J. F. Cairns) that military happenings in Cuba and Viet Nam were not primarily matters for Australia meant that the Australian Labour Party considered that Australia should feel no concern over the disembowelling of priests, the slaughter of innocent people in the streets and so on. This was an utterly reckless distortion of the remarks of the honorable member for Yarra, achieved by taking a few lines out of their context and misquoting them. Page 391 of “Hansard” of 10th March shows that the statement of the honorable member for Yarra was based on the statement by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) on 22nd May last year, who said -

The condition of an effective defence programme is that it should be based upon as accurate an assessment as can be made of the probable source and nature of the apprehended attack, the area of possible conflict and the nature of the operations and the nature of the co-operation we may expect from and give to the United Nations in general and our allies in particular.

Commenting on that statement the honorable member for Yarra said -

This was one of the very few occasions when the Prime Minister has placed the United Nations first. What is the probable nature of any apprehended attack? It is not something that happens in Cuba or Viet Kim. Where these are military matters, and where they are more related to defence policy, they are a,Bt primarily matters for Australia. They are not primarily military matters in any case. Most of (hem are economic, social and political matters.

It is not very nice to misquote out of context and then give the emphasis that the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) gave to the honorable member for Yarra’s speech. I should like to make one comment on what he said before dealing with what I want primarily to say this afternoon. When the United States of America recognizes red China this Government will fall into line like meek lambs, because all it is doing in this matter is following Untied States policy. When that changes, so will a change be made here. That is about as much sincerity as the Government has in its continuous opposition to the recognition of red China, which is recognized by far greater countries than this - even by Great Britain.

I want briefly to refer to what I term the shifting sands of foreign affairs, because what is solid in this field to-day may move to-morrow. No commentator or leader can confidently be dogmatic about foreign affairs. Too much happens too soon and too often for any one to make dogmatic assertions or to give uncompromising verdicts about events. After we interpret events on the foreign stage new events crowd in and spreadeagle our previous interpretations.

I feel that we must be very humble indeed in debating foreign affairs. It is a vast subject. It concerns every nation in the world. It deals with political movements among a countless variety of people of all religions, languages, races and ideologies. The interplay of political forces, the clashing of ideas, the growth of selfgovernment and the emergence of new nations create a vast volcanic situation which is liable to erupt into violence or war at any time. Time never stands still in the realm of international affairs. Because of this foreign affairs is a frustrating subject. It is so difficult to be conclusive and decisive when changes take place so dramatically on the stage of human and national relationships. There has never been a month since the war when some political crisis somewhere has not hit world headlines and often stayed there for a long time. I will give a few illustrations of this, although not in chronological order. We had the Berlin crisis, Israel, Suez, Sharpeville in South Africa, Algeria, Morocco, Formosa, Cuba, South Viet Nam, North Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia coming into and going out of the world’s news almost continuously. Then there were Kashmir, the Belgian Congo, Ghana, Singapore and the Malayan Communist trouble - our struggle to win the battle there - and Cyprus, the Berlin Wall, Malaysia and West New Guinea. This is the pattern of crises that have occurred and which have hit world headlines since the war, together with many others that I have not been able to track down in the time available to me.

The role of the United Nations in the shifting sands of world foreign affairs is very important, and I believe that the United Nations has prevented a major conflict on several occasions and massive jungle law among the nations. We owe the United Nations a great debt. This organization is not perfect, because it is too human, but we owe it a great debt for damping down the fires of friction and conflict.

The honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), to whom I always listen with a great deal of respect, although I cannot always agree with him, spoke during the debate on the Address-in-Reply and made four main points on the problems of South-East Asia, which are many and serious. He said, first, that South-East Asia should be thought of as one concept. I entirely agree with that. He said, secondly, that we should have a selective national service training scheme, taking in 14,000 national trainees a year, with two years’ continuous training, overseas service and proper rehabilitation, similar to that of the American draftee service. I do not agree with that, but that was one of his solutions. He said, thirdly, that we should have a division instead of three battle groups. Militarily, that is O.K. He said, fourthly, that the question of the Indonesian confrontation of Malaysia should be taken to the United Nations. We agree with that. He firmly believes it should be taken to the United Nations. Fifthly, he said - as appears at page 265 of “ Hansard “ -

Finally, I say that nothing can replace personal contacts, personal discussions, personal interviews and personal friendships.

He reminded us that the distance between Sydney and Singapore and Saigon is no greater than that from Sydney to Perth. Very good! I thoroughly agree with four of those five points. He has done a lot to carry out what he advocates. He has been to Asia on several occasions, and that is terribly important. But he and the Minister, and every propagandist of the Western world, left out the one vital factor in solving international problems to-day. They ignored the ideological struggle, the ideological answer, the ideological weapon, the psychological weapon, the Communist technique for capturing the minds of men. We of the Western world - I say it deliberately - are babes in the wood when it comes to ideological warfare. We leave it out of all our considerations on a world scale and spend nothing, on it at all. Ideologically we fiddle while Asia burns.

The Communists have captured at least fifteen nations since the war, all without firing a shot. The Communists have perfected weapons to win men’s minds. Go and see and find out, as I did in Asia. See their methods, right down to the level of the man-to-man attack. Military, economic and political weapons have their place, but the Communists have found that ideological weapons give victory where other weapons are clumsy, ineffective and very expensive. My experience in Asia a few years ago proved to me that the Communists have perfected this technique in the schools, in the shops, in the lanes of the cities and in villages, on foot or on push bikes. Singly, or in twos, there is a man-to-man approach by dedicated, well-trained Communists, in all walks of life, working on their fellow men and insistently pressurizing their neighbours and others alongside their own nations, attacking the main citadel of man - his mind. They pour out propaganda by radio, by leaflets and personal attack, in a massive aggressive educational programme for Communist expansion. And what does the West do about it? Nothing! All we talk about is bigger armies, bigger navies and bigger air forces. It makes me sick to listen to that in this Parliament. The Minister for Externa] Affairs has not spent one second, since I have been in this place, talking about the ideological weapon which has been used so successfully and dramatically around the world by the Communists. Why do we not take a leaf out of their book and train men in this mighty field of propaganda and of winning mens’ minds? Do honorable members think one can win mens’ minds when they stand at the end of a gun? Do they think one can win mens’ minds if they are at the end of a rifle? It has never been done. Hitler proved that, Mussolini proved it and Napoleon proved it. Fascist ideas cannot finally be defeated by war. Right around the world communism has not been defeated by war. It is about time that the Western nations did something along the lines I suggest.

I am deeply concerned at the West’s purile effort in giving the Western image to the South-East Asian area. The honorable member for Chisholm may agree with me here, even if he has not agreed with what I have said so far. What does this image consist of in the main? Where do the Western image-makers live? What country leads the West in creating the Western image? What sort of image is being built up in Asia? It is the United States of America that is taking the lead. Its agencies of propaganda are powerful, rich and far-reaching, but the pattern of their propaganda is frightening and was well summed up by Edward R. Murrow when speaking before representatives of the film industry in Hollywood on 5th November, 1961, as reported in a book just published by Walter Joyce, who is not related to William Joyce, entitled “The Propaganda Gap “. At page 94 he said -

There are many people abroad who think that Chicago is still wracked by gang warfare, that the West is still wild, that beyond the Mississippi lie badlands still periled by warring Indians, that all other Americans live in penthouse apartments, drive limousine-dimension convertibles, wear tailored furs- and that any woman without a fortyinch bust and twenty-inch waist and any man not gilded with the golden head of Adonis must not be an American. How do they know all this? They say they saw it in the movies.

This is what America’s greatest propaganda weapon is doing in building up the Western image in Asian countries, but it is no answer to Communism and never will be while it follows its present pattern. Walter Joyce begins his challenging book with this dramatic sentence -

While we have mustered our defenses for the eventuality of a hot war, we may be in dire danger of losing the ideological struggle for the minds of men.

The basic reason for the Western defeat on the ideological battleground is that we do not have an ideology, and a people without an ideology to-day can be without a country to-morrow. That has been proved by the Communists in other parts of the world. We are dominated and actuated by sheer, unadulterated, naked materialism - a materialism almost as frightening as the materialism of the Communists themselves. We are so engrossed in building bigger and better navies, faster jet planes, bigger and better armies, bigger and better bombs and all the gadgets of capitalism that we have forgotten that there is a God and that we have a spirit which material things will never nourish or satisfy. “ I’m all right Jack “ is no basis for an ideology to beat Communism. The West is without an effective ideology or a convincing faith in its own basic foundations and it is therefore fright.eningly at the mercy of a fanatical communism which has an ideology, though we detest it, which trains its ideological fighters for world missions and which sends these dedicated, disciplined men and women out to capture men’s minds and hearts, especially in nations which are weak economically

Does the West send dedicated ideological fighters into Asian countries as ambassadors, diplomats, experts, teachers, scientists and so on? It does not do so by deliberate policy, but the Communists always do. With the West it just happens sometimes that one is a dedicated ideological fighter, but that is only luck. There is no decisive policy about it and that is a weakness that could prove to be fatal in Asia. Walter Joyce said at page 107 of his book in respect of this matter -

The fact is, unfortunately, that many missionaries -

He includes in this word all Western folk who work overseas, not merely religious missionaries - are dispatched abroad without a defined, positive, relevant ideology to propagate and with little knowledge of the ideology and strategies of their true adversaries.

That is a very profound statement on the weakness of the West. We should select the right kind of men for this terribly dangerous and important work of winning the minds of men to our own way of life. We imagine that we are safe when we ring ourselves with arsenals and armed friends, when we possess all the modern physical weapons of retaliation and destruction, when we spend £200,000,000 a year on defence in Australia alone, when our planes fly faster than the planes of the Soviet. We imagine that we are safe, but are we? Are we safe when we are ideologically unarmed and ideologically naked against this Communist conspiracy? We are tragically vulnerable unless we start to spend money to train our forces and civilian leaders here and overseas in all the intricacies of ideological warfare. Yet this is one matter that the west will not tackle. While we are losing the battle in this field the Communists are winning. They do not have to spend so much money to conduct an ideological war as we are prepared to spend on a material war that may come. Walter Joyce said at page 138 of his book -

We have no choice but to commit ourselves on the ideological front as wholeheartedly, intelligently and imaginatively as we can. That is the premise of the program outlined on the following pages.

At the back of the book he gives a positive answer to the way that we can build up and make an effective ideological war against communism. The appendix of this book contains some excellent suggestions. That is what he is referring to in the words I have just quoted. He continued -

The recommendations in the program are a crystallization of the thinking of many of the nation’s foremost communicators and analysts of propaganda. The program recognizes that the United States . . . has the responsibility to take the lead in the ideological war. Many of our foremost thinkers are convinced that failure to meet the responsibility is not only a grave strategic error. If one believes in the principles on which this nation was built, it is also a moral breach. The program on the following pages shows how to meet the challenge.

Other writers from the United States who have visited Asia and have worked there and in other countries where the Communists are doing their best to win the battle for the minds of men have written in a similar strain. Yet the United States is still pouring cheap movies into Asia, doing more harm than good and completely misleading those people as to the true significance of our democratic way of life. While we use cheap films from Hollywood as our main weapon of propaganda in these countries we will certainly be defeated in the ideological battle because the Communists have different tactics. Their approach is far more intense, fanatical, disciplined and personal and they have many more trained men to carry out their policy, which is a decisive policy. I believe that the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) who has so much to say about things that are not so important should perhaps give a lead in the ideological war because we are close to Asia and the future of Asia could depend on our winning the “ ideological war in Asia “.

New England

.- Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the statement made to the House the other evening by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) and to the debate that has taken place this afternoon. In effect, the Minister’s statement on international affairs brings history up to date. It also looks into the future and tries to analyse those forces in the world to-day that will affect us in Australia and determine the future of the whole world. It is difficult to look into the future. The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) mentioned what I think he described as the shifting sands of foreign affairs. If it is said that our policy is a shifting one, I point out that that is essential. It should be a shifting policy, because economic, political and geographical conditions change continually and we find it impossible to establish a static policy that is adaptable to all the changed conditions that evolve from time to time.

The Minister analysed many aspects of the situation in which Australia finds herself to-day. I propose to discuss the historical antecedents of the Minister’s statement and to consider Australia’s evolving position in world affairs. Proceeding from that, I intend to describe what may happen if the things that are envisaged actually occur. Historically, up to the time of the Second World War, Australia was very much tied to Great Britain. Our foreign policy, our domestic policies, our law and our government all were closely tied to Great Britain. In every way, we were very closely linked to the mother country. I believe that we owe a great deal to Great Britain and that in the future we shall continue our association with her. Earlier this afternoon, we dealt with a motion relating to a presentation to the new House of Assembly of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. In that motion, we say something symbolic of our relations with the newly emerging nations to our near north. I believe that, through relations with other countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations, Britain will play a continuing and perhaps even increasing part in our affairs.

During and after the Second World War, Mr. Speaker, the United States of America came out of her isolationism. Without doubt, we are becoming increasingly tied to her. For that reason I am most interested - as, no doubt, are many other honorable members - in the way in which Australia is now evolving her own policy. Australia seems to be recognizing her place in the South Pacific. She has realized the fact that she is no longer completely tied to Great Britain on the one hand or the United States on the other. I believe that in the Minister’s statement we can see something of the emergence of Australia with a policy of her own. With respect to the conflict between East and West, however, I believe that Australia’s position must still be dependent on the great powers. For this reason, the Australian Government has entered into treaty obligations in an endeavour to secure our position in the future. I consider that our treaty links with the United States and Great Britain must continue to be the basis of our foreign policy and our defence policy in the event of any future nuclear war.

Our problems to-day seem to be not so much those of nuclear warfare as those of local warfare of the kind that is likely to occur in the jungles to our near north with the attempted encroachment of communism into countries with borders close to our shores. I believe that, by participation in the Colombo Plan and in other schemes for economic assistance, we can perhaps play in the future an even more important part than we have played in the past. Before I discuss that matter more fully, however, I want to discuss briefly one country in Western Europe that at this stage, I believe, also is evolving its own foreign policy. This is a country that the Minister mentioned in his statment. He spoke of General de Gaulle and of the neutralization policy adopted by France with respect to South-East Asia. Of more interest, I think, is the fact that, although three years ago it looked as if Western Europe would become an entity, to-day it is perhaps being split asunder. France is evolving her own policies. At present, General de Gaulle is travelling through Mexico. He is beginning to re-affirm the claims of France to be regarded as a nuclear power. He is claiming for France equal status not only with Britain but also with the United States and the Soviet Union.

As the Minister for External Affairs said, Mr. Speaker, Australia is not a great country in terms of power and influence. We are a middle power and we still have a great deal to learn. I for one should like to see Australia perhaps take a more dominating role in the development not only of countries in Asia but also of the islands to our north, as well as of the countries of Latin America. Therefore, I noted with some regret that the Minister made no comment about Latin America. In that part of the world, there may not be at present any circumstances of undue moment for Australia, but I believe that South America and Central America, as distinct from North America, are regions with which Australia should have closer associations in the future. In South and Central America there are something like twenty nations. Unfortunately, many of them are still under some form of dictatorial government. Nonetheless, I believe that they are countries with which Australia could trade and with which we could perhaps forge closer links.

I believe that a policy designed to achieve those objectives would strengthen our hand in the southern hemisphere. So I say that 1 should have liked to hear the Minister make some mention of affairs in Latin America.

Let me now turn to the other side of this continent and deal with Africa. A good deal has been happening there with the emergence of new nations and forces in the last twenty years. In Africa, there has been a drift away from the old policy of looking to Europe, and many new national entities have been evolved. A number of different forces are influencing events there. Only this week, our newspapers have mentioned the fact that Libya, for example, is asserting her territorial rights. Unfortunately for her, perhaps, economic conditions have enabled her to develop a new-found sense of power. These events represent for us a lesson that I shall later relate to circumstances in our near north and to the possibilities that I see in an extension of the Colombo Plan.

We should take cognizance of a number of factors affecting affairs in Africa. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the attitudes adopted by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) and the Minister for External Affairs in dealings with South Africa, for example. That is a country to which we must continue to be closely linked in the future. The South African nation, like the Australian nation, has its antecedents in Europe. South Africa, however, has problems with which we, fortunately, are not beset. She is a country that, I am afraid, will be subject to enormous pressures in the future. I believe that Africa - particularly South Africa - presents the world with one of the greatest problems that it will have to face in the next ten years. Fortunately, stability appears to be on the way in central Africa, where, up to a point, the white man and the black man seem to have learned to live together. We hope that in the future some such happy state of unification may come about in South Africa.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Does the honorable member really think that that is likely?


– If this has happened in central Africa, let us hope that it will happen in South Africa, too.

I should now like to go back to our near north. There has been much talk of the resurgence of communism to our north through the expansion of Communist China. I believe that we should look at a couple of factors in particular in considering affairs in our near north. One of these factors is that there are only two countries to our north which contain basically unilateral people; they do not have a multi-racial population. Those countries are China and Japan. Whilst in China there are many individual dialects and a man from the north cannot necessarily speak to a man from the south, the nationals of China and Japan do comprise two basic racial groups. In that respect the position is entirely different from that which exists in other countries to our near north. For example, in Malaysia there is a large percentage of other nationalities besides Malays. I know that in 1962 in the Federation of Malaya and in Singapore there were more than 2,500,000 Chinese. Throughout the whole of South-East Asia there are something like 10,000,000 people of Chinese origin.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with problems. We have not only to consider the expansion of a nation such as China southwards into nations containing people who have no common background, but we have also to consider the expansion of China into other countries where there are people of the same basic racial origin. I was rather interested to read an article in “ The Australian Journal of Politics and History” of the Australian National University in Canberra written by Professor C. P. Fitzgerald on the attitudes of these expatriate Chinese towards their homeland. I should like to quote portion of this article. Professor Fitzgerald says -

The Overseas Chinese have not, as a whole, tended to take a clear and definite attitude to the problem of the “two Chinas”-

Taiwan and red China - whether to regard the government of the mainland as the true Chinese government, or to cling to the nationalist regime in Formosa. The Chinese of the Nanyang are not all rich, nor yet by any means all underprivileged. Capitalists and merchants will tend to look askance at communism whether at home or abroad; the struggling labourer living in a crowded tenement in the slums of Singapore will listen to the stories he hears of China today with a different ear.

That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to my final point, namely, the necessity for the economic development of these countries to our near north if we hope to live in peace and harmony with them in the future, if we hope to lead them to some form of democracy similar to our own and if we hope to resist the expansion of communism. I shall quote another paragraph at the end of this article. The author states -

The great underlying question of South East Asia, as of many other parts of the world, is how the uneven and backward economy of these countries can be modernised and developed to a point where the standard of living approaches that achieved in the stable countries of the west.

In the Sydney “ Sun “ of last night reference was made to some of the problems that beset this economic stability as a result of the confrontation policy of Indonesia. It was reported that the “ Centaur “, the trade ship sent out by the Australian Government to countries of South-East Asia, had arrived in Malaysia, and that the ship was the first Australian victim of Indonesia’s confrontation policy. I am afraid that is true. Singapore, the commercial hub of Asia, has been particularly hard hit by this confrontation policy. I understand1 there is much unemployment in the city itself. It is stated in the article that there are something like 25,000 people looking for work, and that Indonesia’s aggressive policy has meant a 20 per cent, drop in the island’s overseas trade.

What Malaya wants, I suggest, is some additional assistance from Australia. Whether the assistance is to come, as suggested in this article, by means of capital investment by Australian industry or whether it is going to come through some additional grant under the Colombo Plan, I do not know. It is, however, of considerable interest, to examine the amount of Colombo Plan aid given to Indonesia and Malaya during 1962. In that year aid worth £2,613,803 was given to Indonesia. By contrast only £492,770 worth of Colombo Plan aid was given to Malaya. In view of the economic situation that exists in Malaysia to-day as a result of Indonesia’s confrontation policy the position is in need of revision.

If we can develop a prosperous economy in countries such as Malaya and cities such as Singapore, and maintain that prosperity over the next ten years, many of the problems that face those countries to-day will be overcome. We will also be assisting the continued maintenance of Malaysia as a national entity. If as a nation we continue to assist these under-developed peoples, we will perform no greater service to Australia. All the more is this true when we consider that at present we have such magnificient trade reserves. As Australians fully aware of this situation we should be prepared to consider not only our own internal development, but also the necessity to give assistance to the countries to our near north.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. If in the future we can look back on our diplomatic record of the past and realize that we have followed this charter, we will be, perhaps, in a unique position compared with many other countries. I am sure that each and every one of us as Australians contributes to the thoughts that were expressed when the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed -

This Universal Declaration of Human. Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States’ themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Then the various articles of the charter are set out. In them we have the reference back to the United Nations with which the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) has dealt in his statement to this House. If we can only get a full measure of co-operation amongst the countries of the west and the east, within the United Nations, many of the problems of the future will be resolved. In reply to a question asked in the House to-day the Minister said that some consideration must be given to the enforcement of the contributory obligations of the participating nations of the United Nations. I hope that out of this we will get a greater degree of support for the decisions of the United Nations. Then, perhaps, we might really and truly be getting somewhere.


.- The honorable and new member for New

England (Mr. Sinclair) is like a breath of spring in the ranks of the Australian Country Party. What a refreshing effect it has had on us to observe the reasonableness with which he approached this topic in contrast to the outmoded toryism that has characterized the speeches of members from the Country Party in any foreign affairs debate in the past. We listened this afternoon to the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Ian Allan). If there was ever a provocative statement, it was his. If there was ever anything designed to bring about a continuation of tensions that prevail in the world at present it was the statement by the honorable member for Gwydir. We wish the honorable member for New England well in his endeavours to bring fresh thinking and better attitudes into the Country Party ranks.

My remarks should be considered against the background of the Australian Labour Party’s declarations on foreign policy made as late as July, 1963, at Perth. I think it is important to mention briefly several of the salient features of Labour’s views on foreign policy enunciated on that occasion. For example, it was declared -

Australia’s national policy must be to ensure her territorial security, the security of her overseas trade and her development as an independent but co-operative nation.

The nation’s defence must be so arranged that the intention of Australia to defend itself to the limits of its ability is clear beyond all doubt to our own people, to our allies and to any potential aggressor.

That is the first axiom upon which the Australian Labour Party founds its attitude on foreign policy. Our first declaration is that we stand for the adequate defence of Australia. Our next point is in sharp contrast to the attitude of the Government and of the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick). We say -

Labour’s defence and foreign policies are based on the conviction that war can and must be prevented and Australia has a part to play in its prevention.

Australia cannot be a mere camp follower without any say in the great decisions of peace anr! war.

These are the declarations made at the much maligned Perth conference. The decisions reached there have so far been inadequately understood by the Australian people. It is against that background that I want to comment on some of the attitudes recently expressed by General de Gaulle. We would like the people to realize that Labour does not intend that Australia should become mere flotsam and jetsam in the international environment. Indeed, we believe that we have a great responsibility to Asia. It is true, as the honorable member for New England has pointed out, that the. economic growth of Asia has slowed down as a consequence of the present tension. I read to-day that when the Australian trade ship arrived at Singapore little business came to it because Singapore. ,has been affected by the confrontation that is taking place between Indonesia and Malaysia. This is only one example of the total effect of the tension that is increasing around Asia at present. 1 should like to discuss the recent proposal about neutralization made by General de Gaulle on 31st January. We should realize that General de Gaulle represents 80,000,000 Frenchmen. He is not a spokesman for the Communist bloc or for anything we detest. In fact, he is one of the leading figures in the Western alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When he ‘talks about Asia, we can probably concede that he has no more to gain than Australia has. It would be fair to contend that he has less to gain than Australia has from a peaceful settlement of the Asian crisis. General de Gaulle has demonstrated a compassion and a concern for the masses of Asia which many of us could well emulate.

I believe that Asia has so far gained very little from cold war alignments. Something like neutralization is perhaps the only real alternative to the present entanglements, which prevent any one from obtaining a genuine victory. The nuclear deterrent has not worked in Asia. It is not anywhere near as effective in Asia as it has appeared to be in Europe. Since our introduction to nuclear war, we have seen hostilities in Korea, Laos, Viet Nam and on the ChinaIndia border. The nuclear deterrent has not worked satisfactorily here. The tension of cold war can go on to manifest itself in areas even closer to Australia than the areas in which it is apparent at present. Tt could extend to the Malaysia-Indonesian confrontation and it could have the effect of forcing Indonesia into an entanglement with one of the parties in the cold war. At present, Indonesia is not aligned with China, and it would be a most unhappy development for Australia if she came to be aligned with China. At present, there is no open hostility between Malaysia and Indonesia and we hope there never will be. lt is a good practice to encourage a consideration of the concept of neutralization. This is in Australia’s interests.

One area of conflict in the Asian theatre at the present time is South Viet Nam. General de Gaulle’s proposal has particular significance for Viet Nam. lt was intended to apply to Viet Nam. In outlining it, he proposed that a pre-requisite or a preliminary of any progress that might be made would be the co-operation of China. Without the participation and the wholehearted enthusiasm and sincerity of China, it seems to me that an arrangement of neutrality would be unthinkable and impossible. Nevertheless, we would do much towards making progress if we gave some serious thought to the proposition. I believe that we should not dismiss it anywhere near as lightly as the Minister for External Affairs did in the statement he delivered to the House last week. He was condescending and benevolent when he referred to the proposal and he was hardly enthusiastic. He said -

It is far from my wish to be negative or unresponsive about proposals having a bearing on peace and stability in South-East Asia.

But he is not positive and he is not responsive about this proposal. His attitude has been generally quite useless. He went on to say -

Nor is the Australian Government critical of the pursuit of a policy of neutrality and nonalinement by individual countries.

He is not critical, but he is certainly not helpful. He continued -

I believe, however, that any broad discussion of neutralizing this or that area through concerted international action must quickly address itself to precise situations.

But he was not at all precise when he went on to examine the proposition. The proposition should be examined carefully. To my mind, there are important definitions to be decided upon in the early stages. Terms such as “ neutralism “ and “ non-alignment are used and I believe that they must be properly understood from the outset. I do not take the view that it is good for any country to be neutral in the face of all the fast-moving events that are taking place in the world at present. “ Neutralism “ obviously means non-participation and we do not want nations to be subdued. We want them to manifest their nationhood and express their views about the great principles at stake in the world to-day. We would prefer them to be non-aligned, particularly in the cold war. We would like to see them possessed of a capacity to demonstrate and exercise independent judgment, but, from a state of neutrality, we can hope to see these nations emerge to genuine non-alignment.

Mr Chipp:

– Would you wish Australia to be non-aligned?


– Let me tell the honorable member for Higinbotham, who is interjecting, that when we talk about either neutralization or non-alignment we are in pretty good company. This is not new ground that has just been broken. Of all the countries of the world, 55 stand for either neutralism or non-alignment and these include seven developed nations, several of which were mentioned by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren). They are Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Spain and Yugoslavia. They are in company with about eleven Arab League nations, 23 African nations and five Latin American nations. One-third of the world’s population is included in the non-aligned or neutralist bloc. There are approximately 3,000,000,000 people in the world, and in general terms one-third of them - that is 1,000,000,000 - are allied to the Western bloc. Another 1,000,000,000 are in the Communist bloc and 1,000,000,000 are to be found in the 55 non-aligned nations. It is time that we developed a capacity to win respect from these nations which are becoming a somewhat genuine balance of power in the world.

This is not isolated advocacy. General de Gaulle does not stand alone in this matter; he has the support of 55 states. He has the support of the leader of North Viet Nam, who recently made overtures through Cambodia to foster and encourage a policy of neutralization. I believe that the Asians resent war involvement. Let me quote the following historical statement by Mr. Nehru -

Why should we inherit the hatred of others? It is bad enough that we should have our own burdens.

The poverty-stricken people of Asia do not benefit from other people’s wars. They are more interested in improving their own lot, in acquiring better houses and obtaining more food.

Many honorable members opposite have adopted a lazy attitude. They have a tendency to classify things as being either black or white. If somebody in an Asian country adopts an attitude which is compatible with and conducive to the achievement of nationhood and if he does not appear to be rip-roaringly in favour of some extremism - monopoly capitalism or something of that kind - there is a tendency to regard him as being a Communist. People who are aspiring to some kind of cooperative living - some form of communal living, some kind of nationhood or indeed socialism - are often categorized as being Communists. That sort of nonsense must stop. It is because of that sort of thing that the West is going down. Do honorable members opposite think that the tribes of Viet Nam and Laos who live in mudthatched houses have ever read about Marx or En gels? Such misconceptions are causing the Western world to lose a great deal of prestige and standing. Too often the incidents that occur in these countries flow from the concern of the people about land alienation, corruption in their regimes and things of that kind. It seems to me that the Western powers would do well if they started to back some decent principles and to ride home some winners.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.


– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was proposing the neutralization of South Viet Nam. As I have mentioned previously, this has been advocated by General de Gaulle and supported by the President of North Viet Nam. I have contended that such a proposal would have the support of approximately 50 nations of the world which are non-aligned, these nations representing one-third of the world population. It is not subversive to think along these lines, as the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) might suggest. What I propose in respect of Viet Nam was done in respect of Laos in July, 1962. It was fashionable to do it then because a very serious situation, in fact a crisis, had arisen there. It is significant that the West supported the neutralization of Laos and that 14 nations attended the Geneva Convention and became signatories to the agreement. If that can be done in respect of Laos it can be done in respect of Viet Nam, and perhaps General de Gaulle’s proposal should not be dismissed as lightly as some would suggest.

The fact is that peace has broken out in Laos. I should think the honorable member for Mackellar would be very jaded through this realization but the world at large is quite jubilant about it. We are tired and the people of Asia are tired of their country being a battleground for foreign powers and foreign indeologies. They want the right to determine their own affairs. If we can effect neutralization to enable this to happen it will be a good thing.

For years these people have been engaged in fighting, they have suffered years of misery and they have sustained substantial loss of life. Their countries have been divided. I believe they are weary of interference by foreign powers.

It is important to know the background to Asia when you think of matters of this kind. We are not winning in Viet Nam at present. We are going backwards at a rapid rate. It rather seems to me that it is not a natural inclination for the people of Asia to comprehend our viewpoint. As late as 1941 - not so very long ago - only two countries, Japan and Thailand, were free of colonialism. At that time the nations which were under the influence of the Western powers included Cambodia, Viet Nam, both north and south which has a combined population of 30,000,000 people, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya, Borneo, West New Guinea or some would say Papua and New Guinea, Sarawak and India. I repeat that the only exceptions were Japan and Thailand.

As I have stated, we are going backwards rapidly in Viet Nam and something desperate might be undertaken by the United States in the near future to retrieve the very unsatisfactory position in that country.

Over the past seven years we have expended - when I say “we” I mean the

United States - two billion dollars to bolster the regime in South Viet Nam. The present is the third regime to be bolstered by the West in the past ten years. Diem was killed - not democratically killed - although we had supported him for quite some time. He was disposed of. Then General Minh came along and ruled for a couple of weeks. He also was disposed of - not democratically - but the United States had chosen to support him as well. After he was put out of the way there emerged General Kahhn who now rules South Viet Nam, again with the support of the United States. What will happen if there is yet another military coup? Will we throw the support of the West behind any power which prevails in Viet Nam or any one of these countries which has such a dubious content of independence and democracy?

It rather seems to me that there is a tendency for some honorable members to call Communist every one in Viet Nam who fails to throw himself prostrate at the feet of any regime which happens to be installed in office as the result of a military coup. Honorable members on the Government side are interjecting and asking whom I would support. I would support the principle of effecting peace in the quickest possible time in Viet Nam by doing there what has been done successfully in Laos, namely, by co-operating with General de Gaulle and effecting a cease-fire there so that any international convention may be implemented and so that ultimately peace may prevail in that war-torn State. I believe that this may obviate a great crisis - a great confrontation - with China which could certainly occur if the United States has the inclination in the . near future to take the war beyond the 17th parallel.

We on this side of the House find nothing wrong with the ideal of pursuing peace in South-East Asia. I commend neutralism to all honorable members.


– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.


.- Apparently the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) knows well enough what I think of him so I will not waste my time repeating it.

Many statements have been made by members on the Government side which

I support, and many statements have been made by members on the Opposition side which I oppose - though I do not oppose all of them by any means. I want to deal with what I believe to be the main aspect of the subject before us. The Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) has given us something of the picture. I want to say something about the frame. It is perfectly true that in the foreseeable future all history depends on the nuclear situation and the view that we take of it. In saying this I am only repeating what I have said in this House and elsewhere for very many years. There is nothing new, I fear, in what I am about to say, but I believe that it must be said again.

It is true that the means of attack throughout the world in total war have overwhelmed all possibility of defence. It seems almost impossible that there should be any real change in this fundamental situation. At present the power to launch this attack lies in the hands of only four powers - the United States of America, Russia, the United Kingdom and France - but it is “inevitable that unless there is some effective international control of this means of attack, this power will proliferate. The present stalemate - this interlude of freedom from disaster - cannot be held indefinitely without measures of control.

It will be harder to hold if the number of powers possessing these nuclear weapons increases. The possibility of an accidental war will be increased, or the escalation by accident of a smaller war. There is always the chance of a clique or a dictator obtaining command of these weapons, which differ from all other weapons in that they do not require the mass consent of the governed for their application. The present situation cannot be held indefinitely. Hence, unless there is control there will be conflict and that conflict means either annihilation or the emergence of a situation which will be only a repetition of the present uneasy interlude.

Hence one is driven reluctantly but inevitably to the conclusion that if the world is to survive it must find some form of world government. I for one do not like this prospect, because world government is not just world consent. It means also that the power of government shall hold the police power which alone can prevent the emergence of a similar disastrous multilateral nuclear situation. By definition, the world power will be untrammelled. I dislike these things. I hate the prospect but I recognize its inevitability.

This thing could happen in one of three ways or by some combination of them. The single government could emerge as the result of a war which was disastrous beyond relief but still left a few survivors; or it could emerge as the consequences of a smaller war which did not escalate into a total nuclear war but the consequences of which were so bad and so frightening that they could lead to some kind of re-assessment of the situation by the powers that be. In the third place, it could emerge as the result of an agreement. I do not think there is any other way in which it could emerge except by those three or some combination of them; but emerge it must if we are to survive at all.

And now there is some doubt as to whether we are going to survive. We cannot choose whether we are going to have a world government if we are going to survive - for there is a condition of survival - but perhaps within limits we can choose when and how. I say, Sir, that bad though this prospect is it is far better for us to participate in it and to have some hand in the moulding of this new force so that we can ameliorate its bad points rather than to withdraw and, because we see its bad points, to have no part in it. The policy of withdrawal simply means that we would hand the moulding of this over to our enemies or to events we cannot control. Indeed, it might be that, if we refuse to participate in this process, then by some miscalculation we shall cease to exist at all. It is thus far better for us to participate in this than to withdraw ourselves from it. Only thus can we have any hope of the emerging organization not confirming our worst fears as to its nature and consequences.

It is not necessary, of course, that we should bring this organization into being immediately, but I put it to the House that delay may be bad for us and for all people whether we number them as friends or enemies. For ourselves, let us put it to the test of the past - the test of the past nineteen years since nuclear power was first exercised on this world’s surface. In this connexion, I make no apology for talking about our side in this cold war, if there must be a cold war. I have no doubt to which side 1 belong in this cold war. At that time, nearly twenty years ago, we had unquestioned superiority. We had the balance of power on all counts and in all ways including the monopoly of nuclear power. To-day, not only do we stand in terms of something like equality with our enemies in the cold war, but, in addition, both we and our enemies stand in danger of annihilation. At that time, neither we nor our enemies stood in that danger. So if you measure this situation either by the interests of our side in the cold war - and as I have said 1 have no doubt which is my side - or whether you measure it by the interests of humanity as a whole, the deterioration in the position in the past nineteen or twenty years has been almost immeasurable. There is no percentage in continuing delay. As I have said, I put this forward not as a new opinion. I have here a copy of a letter which I wrote to the “ Daily Telegraph “ in Sydney and signed on 21st August, 1945. That was about two or three weeks after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. I set out in that letter the same opinions which I have put forward now and which I do not retract. I believe that then was the time to have done it. This letter of mine might be wrong in terms of timing and detail, but I say that in principle it was and remains right; and it is a stand from which I have never gone back in the past nineteen years.

What has happened since then? I think that the Russians at that time had the chance of coming in and helping to form the world community on a basis of permanent peace and equality. But the infamous Stalin chose another plan. He chose the plan of the fox - the plan of delay and postponement of control. Always put it off; pretend all the time that you are going to allow it and then withdraw, withdraw and delay, pretending friendliness - or should I say pretending enmity - not going to the extent of war and with actions carefully phased but all the time gaining delay with the objective of ruining humanity by putting a competing nuclear force into the field so that Russia - when she got it - could attack.

This plan went wrong for only one reason which nobody then could have foreseen. It went wrong because the new bomb - the fusion bomb as opposed to the fission bomb - was so much worse than the bomb on which Stalin was relying that not even Russia could face this devastation. We were wrong in allowing Russia to do this. I said then and I say now that we should have enforced our will for permanent peace in the world while we did have the atomic monopoly.

Mr Cope:

– How would the honorable member have done that?


– By force, if necessary. I make no apologies for saying that we should have done it by force if necessary, because it would have saved humanity from its present dilemma, on which we now stand, where annihilation for us all is all too likely. It was an act of moral cowardice not to have gone forward in the interests of permanent peace and not to have insisted on permanent nuclear disarmament and permanent world peace and prosperity. This chance was within our grasp. Because we were moral cowards, because we were unwise, because we could not make our leaders understand, we gave up the chance of permanent peace and permanent prosperity for the whole world that was available to us. This, of course, is now water under the bridge. The chance that humanity had for achieving peace in this way has now gone, and we must fall back on the more precarious and less certain means that I mentioned earlier in my speech to-night.

Still Russia plays for delay, all the time using fair words and saying, “ We are the champions of peace and nuclear disarmament “, while at the same time refusing proposals for the essential measures of control and inspection. “ We will not allow these things “, the Russians say, and by so doing they make it certain that there can never be effective world disarmament. We are still suffering from this Russian bad faith, this Russian plot. Perhaps it has been given a new emphasis or a new slant, but it is still there and we are still mugs enough to fall for it.

Meanwhile we see a new cloud on the horizon in the form of Communist China. As we all know, China is now preparing nuclear weapons. It may be five or six years before China will have them, but let me remind the House of what Mr.

Khrushchev said about this. He said that if the Chinese Communists obtained nuclear weapons they proposed a war which would destroy half humanity as well as most of the Chinese people. I do not necessarily believe Mr. Khrushchev’s words. There is generally no evidence that he speaks the truth, but in this case there is some confirmatory evidence, because this goes to the nature of the split between the Russian and the Chinese Communist parties. The Russians would not permit such a split to develop without good reason. The Chinese Communists themselves say that the reason for the split goes back to 1957, when Comrade Khrushchev refused China nuclear weapons and refused China the help of technicians to allow it to make nuclear weapons. As I say, this goes to the nature of the split, and I think the House and the country would be well advised to take some notice of what has been said and done by the Communist leaders in connexion with this matter.

Do not delude yourselves with the flattering unction of a misguided belief that the troubles are behind us. Do not think that because Russia has moved back, through fear alone, from the infamous Stalin plan, a similar movement will occur in China. It is essential that the world protect itself from the disaster which could result if China obtained nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party maintained its present outlook and policies and did the things which Khrushchev himself says it will do.

In this quandary no plan of neutralization or atom-free zones means anything, because any such plan will do nothing to cure the disease. It would be rather like putting a poultice over a cancer. The poultice may conceal for a short time the nature of the disease, but it will not cure it. If you apply the poultice to cover up the cancer and fail to take other necessary steps, then the poultice will not just do nothing; it will do harm rather than good.

I am one of those who believe in disarmament and in world government, but I say that in order to achieve these things we must take a much firmer line in the future than we have taken in the past. It is no use running away again.


.- On 15th August, 1945, in company with hundreds of other Australians belonging to our infantry units, I stood on a hill in Borneo and heard the announcement that the war with Japan was over, and I for one thanked God that the Russians were on our side. I have just listened to the mischievous pronouncements of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), who has told us that we should at that stage have embarked on a preventive war with the Russians, which would have involved two of the mightiest armies in all history meeting face to face in Europe, inextricably entangled. Even if Moscow had been bombed, war would have continued in Europe and millions more lives would have been lost. I believe such remarks to be completely mischievous and unworthy of a member of this Parliament.

The honorable member tells us that he believes in world government. Would any sensible person agree to confer with somebody like the honorable member for Mackellar or his colleagues who share his philosophy for the purpose of establishing a government? Would you, Mr. Speaker? Having in mind your record, I am sure you would not. Would 1? Would the people of Australia? Certainly not! What kind of government would people like the honorable member for Mackellar and his colleagues establish?

We are discussing the foreign policy of the present Australian Government which, in the field- of international affairs, has shown itself to be one of the worst governments in the Western world. It has failed in its duty to Australia, to Asia and to humanity generally. I remind the honorable member for Mackellar of the words that appear at the beginning of the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -

Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the operations of peace must be constituted.

What begins in the mind of the honorable member for Mackellar? War, not peace; hate, not love; intolerance, not tolerance. I am sorry that on this occasion we have heard from honorable members on the other side of the House so much of intolerance, hate, suspicion and distrust. We have heard this from one of them after another, from the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), the honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Chipp) and now from the honorable member for Mackellar, men who have been equipped with great intellectual capacity, but who have risen in their places and poured out words which, if taken as government policy on international affairs, would lead the world to disaster and destruction.

Our discussion here is of humanity. It is a discussion of the struggles and poverty and weaknesses of 3,000,000,000 people on this planet, whose welfare and future are in our charge and keeping. After all, the future of humanity will depend on the decisions that we and other nations of the world make, and on the guidance that we and other nations give. Let me suggest to the honorable member for Mackellar and some of his colleagues that it would not be a bad idea to have a look at the first page of the Melbourne “ Herald “ of Wednesday, 18th March, which carries a picture of a child trying to drag his father away and save, him from being arrested by a soldier in South Viet Nam. This is one of the most telling pictures and one of the most compelling messages that I have seen in any newspaper for many a day. We on this side of the House are speaking of humanity, while honorable members opposite speak of war and power. This is where we find ourselves in dispute. Honorable members opposite accuse us almost of treason and treachery because, they say, we are not fully aligned.

Mr L R Johnson:

– Let them say it outside.


– Yes, let them say it outside. Similar things have been said outside, have been challenged in a court of law and have been subjected to the cold scrutiny of twelve good men and true, and those who said such things have found themselves poorer to the extent of £30,000. To-night we should be discussing the means by which Australia will take its mission to the rest of the world. Honorable members opposite speak arrant nonsense about this subject. Even the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) himself, after making quite an exercise of examining the situation, offered not one single remedy. I say to the honorable member for Mackellar: Would it not be a good idea if, instead of considering reaction as a means of world government, we thought of co-operation? We have seen the way in which international bodies work. We have seen the activities of the International Postal Union, the World Health Organization, Interpol, the International Tin Agreement and the International Civil Aviation Organization. Consider the fact that the airlines of the world are in complete agreement on fares. It is easy these days to reach international agreement. If we have the wit and the will we can soon find a way. The answer lies not in coercion but in co-operation.

I heard the honorable member for Higinbotham interject on the question of alinement when the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) was speaking. Is the honorable member for Higinbotham fully alined with American foreign policy? Does he agree with the attempt by the Americans to ban British trade because of the sale of buses to Cuba? Which side does he line up on in relation to that piece of foreign policy? Of course, this country cannot commit itself uncritically to another nation’s foreign policy. That is the fundamental error in the policy of the Government. It is completely uncritical. It is fully alined. It is just a vote in power politics. We on this side of the House stand for a free, self-reliant and independent Australia with a mission in world affairs.

Let us examine for a moment the speech of the Minister for External Affairs. What did it amount to? It was a fifteen-page or sixteen-page exercise in good writing. 1 said to one of my friends earlier, “Good fifth form work perhaps, but not quite first-class sixth form.” It was simply an exercise in description, and that is not good enough from the Minister in charge of the foreign affairs of this Government. We expect more. It was vague, it was doubting. He said, “ I told you so “ about China. The theme of the speech was not a suitable one for a self-reliant, independent Australia. The speech was full of doubts and reasons why things could not be done. The Minister referred to neutralization, and he spelt out the difficulties. He referred to the recognition of China. “ It is not as easy as people think”, he said. He sneered at the idea of nuclear-free zones and said that there were all sorts of problems in this connexion. I recall the frosty answer that the Government gave to the Secretary-

General of the United Nations regarding the development of the idea of nuclear-free zones.

At no stage has the Government shown any initiative for good in the world. It has completely failed in its duty. The world at this moment needs guidance, not necessarily leadership, although it is from the smaller nations that we may expect some degree of leadership. The peoples of Russia and the United States of America have a fundamental humanity in common, but they are locked, on either side of the iron curtain, in bonds which it is impossible for them to break. But the rest of the world is not just Russian and American or even Chinese. There are 200,000,000 people in Russia and 200,000,000 in the United States. The people of those countries number only 400,000,000 of the 3,000,000,000 people in the world. What is wrong with the rest of us, leaving the Chinese aside for the moment? It is time that the rest of the world got together and broke the deadlock of nonsense in which we find ourselves. This Government could show some leadership in this respect.

What are the problems of the world? I suggest they are poverty, the arms race, distrust and suspicion, and the fact that new financial procedures are always required. I am intrigued by honorable members opposite and their sales of wheat to red China. If people are hungry, whether they are in China, Timbuktu or Peru, I like to see them fed, so I do not oppose the sale of wheat to China. But I ask: Why cannot we find a way to get wheat to the Indians? Why are financial measures not available to make that possible? Why have we not the wit to find a way to feed the people of India, which is among the struggling nations of the world? For too long we have been obsessed with the vision of China raising itself by authoritarian methods. We neglect the democratic struggles of the people of India to raise themselves. I know that in Australia it is the procedure, after the wheat has been reaped and taken to the silos, to stack it in the silos, and after a while, if it is not all sold the farmers receive their first payment on it. Why cannot we sell wheat or dispose of it in some other way to the starving peoples of the world? If we can pay the farmers for the wheat to be stacked in the silos in the Wimmera and the Mallee, surely we could pay for it to be stacked in the stomachs of Indians. That is a challenge. We have received no message from the Minister on this important question.

We on this side of the House are deeply regretful that the Government continues to occupy the treasury bench. The things that the Government does to our domestic affairs are bad enough - the education system, the railway system, the social service system and all the other things with which our domestic policy is concerned; but the Government’s abdication of its duty in the realm of foreign policy is tragic. In this respect the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) is more guilty than most honorable members on the other side of the chamber. The supporters of the Government accept defeat and pessimism. They support reaction and abdicate their duty. 1 ask honorable members opposite: Why is it that we have no troops for the Congo or for Cyprus? Why is it that other countries can supply peace forces and we cannot do so? The honorable member for Mackellar speaks of world government. We cannot even supply one platoon to assist in the pacification and police actions that are needed around the world. Surely there is sufficient power in the armaments of the world to suppress disputes in places like Cyprus, where there are probably no more than 150,000 or 200,000 families or households.

Is it not possible to mobilize the world to keep the peace? If the countries of the world were to mobilize for that purpose, where would we s’an.d? I am not very keen on sending young Australians out of this country to fight other people’s wars, but we have a duty in this connexion. If the smaller nations such as the Canadians, the Irish and, I think, the Indonesians, have troops to send for operations of this kind, what is wrong with Australia? We have failed again.

The Government has brought us into disrepute because of the disreputable friends it keeps. It is old history now, of course, but we remember the support that the Prime Minister and other honorable members opposite gave to Dr. Verwoerd. But what of some of our friends in SouthEast Asia? Let us look at the record of Sarit Thanarat, who died recently. He was one of our good friends, one of the leaders of Thailand, one of the powers for good, peace and freedom, according to our friends opposite. But what do the newspapers say about him now? It is said that, in addition to storing up merit for good works, he also found time to store up a personal fortune variously estimated at between 40,000,000 dollars and 90,000,000 dollars and to maintain a set of first and second wives, mistresses and concubines with a generosity and on a scale that has left the broadminded Thais as staggered as the British were by the Profumo case.

Mr Uren:

– In which newspaper did that report appear?


– In the Sydney “Daily Telegraph “, a newspaper which is not a reliable reporter of Australian affairs, but probably more accurate in this instance. Those revelations have shocked the people of Thailand, but they do not shock honorable members opposite. We can give chapter and verse regarding their friends of the last few years. They have brought disgrace upon Australia and they have prejudiced our status in world affairs.

Australia is rich in resources. In fact, it is one of the richest countries of the world. We have freedom from past mischief-making, and we have never menaced anybody. We could not be a menace to anybody with the defence system that this Government has produced for us. 1 know that there is a common feeling inside Australia that one of the tragedies of Australian politics is the way in which the Government and its spokesmanship have continually produced in people’s minds distrust, suspicion and a tearfulness about Australia’s future. What is wrong with us? The message that the Labour Party tries to get across in such debates as this is that we want a selfreliant, independent, strong-minded Australia with an independent voice in world affairs, and a government which will judge issues on their merits - something that has not been done for many years. What is wrong with Switzerland, a tiny country which has maintained its independence and its neutrality, has been able to sustain itself and to become a model for the rest of the world in most things democratic and in governmental procedures? What is wrong with Israel, an oasis of democracy in the Middle East? I do not think this

Government has put a great deal of effort into fostering Israel’s survival in the face of the boycott of its shipping in the Suez Canal area.

We continually fail in our duty when great issues are at stake. Usually, Australians speak out in public affairs and stand up to be counted, but under this Government we are as silent as the grave in world affairs. We are just another vote in power politics. There is continual sneering at such things as nuclear-free zones. What is wrong with nuclear-free zones? They are very good for South America. Perhaps the speaker who follows me in this debate can tell us why it is good to have a nuclear-free zone in South America and bad to have a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. Admittedly, there are geographical differences but I would like to know why one is possible, desirable and sponsored and the other is dangerous and difficult?

What about successful neutral zones? This idea has been scoffed at. I agree with the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) that General de Gaulle is nothing if not realistic. In the last few years he has had some notable victories for France. I do not say that he has always been right but his disengagement from Algeria was to be commended. It may well be that in this instance he has got something. What is wrong with disengagement in these areas? Take a look at history. The Rush border agreement between Canada and the United States of America was signed in 1817. Honorable members opposite will say “ Yes, but that is different “. They should look pretty closely at history. If there had not been a zone of disengagement along that border and the complete demilitarization of the Great Lakes area many incidents in the 30 years following the agreement could have led to war between the United States and Britain. The same is true of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1922 between Turkey and Greece. A zone extending for 30 kilometres on either side of the border was demilitarized. A similar arrangement was reached between Sweden and Norway in 1905. There is quite a pattern in these things. It is quite possible to create areas of disengagement. In every instance in which it has occurred in the past it has successfully prevented war and brought great peace and comfort to the citizens on either side who would have been the first victims at the outbreak of war.

So on this particular occasion it is appropriate to discuss defence policy. We cannot discuss it fully. We do not often get a chance to discuss foreign policy here. One of the most burning questions continuously raised here at question time is very rarely discussed in open debate. It is significant to me that no Minister is taking part in this debate. We have reduced ourselves to a complete cipher militarily. We have no troops available for United Nations peace action. We have no effective defence of the Australian homeland. While we are in that position we will never develop a free and independent voice. Honorable members on this side of the House say that a self-reliant Australia means the direction and the mobilization of Australia’s resources so that we can defend ourselves. We are not going to say that we need no allies; that would be foolish indeed. But we do say - and this is borne out by Australia’s history - that a mobilized and properly organized Australia would be able almost completely to defend itself. At present we have over a million men of military age. We have one of the largest industrial complexes in the whole of this area. Hardly anybody in this area in the foreseeable future can have the kinds of ships and equipment necessary to invade us. In the event of conventional war, had the Government in its fourteen years in office organized the nation in the proper way, we would have been able to defend ourselves.

In every case the Government has abdicated its duty. Australian craftsmen, technicians, manufacturers and scientists are always bypassed. We have destroyed the very basis of our protection. We believe that a self-reliant Australia with an independent voice in world affairs could be developed to do its duty in fulfilling the needs of the world. The policy of the present Government has denied Australia that opportunity.

After looking over the speech of the Minister, I have some questions to ask. We do not claim to know the answers, but the people on the other side of the House, particularly the Minister, have great resources at their disposal. At least they ought to to be applying their minds to these problems. I am waiting for the Minister to spell out the problem here some day and tell us what he would do if he could organize world opinion on his side. What is he going to do about poverty? I have mentioned aid for India. It is probably a simple question of financial organization. What are we going to do about war on ignorance? What are we going to do to assist the nations of SouthEast Asia in overcoming their population problems? Where do we stand on disarmament? Do we speak like the honorable member for Mackellar? What are we to do in these matters? How are we to develop new trading systems so that the peoples of the world may benefit from the wealth that lies in countries such as Australia? How are we to organize disentanglement in South-East Asia? What can we do to Strengthen the United Nations as a peace force and how can we aid suppressed peoples like those in South Africa?

We do not claim to know the answers, but we do feel that it is not asking too much in debate in the National Parliament that the Minister, a man of proven, great capacity in his chosen field, should be able to step into the House and say: “This is the problem. This is what I feel ought to be done about it.” Every speaker on the other side of the House spells out the difficulties but never the answers. From the Minister we find it is exactly the same. I hope that honorable members opposite will remember that in questions of foreign policy, in all questions of peace and war we are dealing with human beings and not power complexes.


.- The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) was kind enough to issue to me an invitation which I gladly accept. He asked the question: If a nuclear-free zone in Latin America is all right, what is wrong with a nuclear-free zone in the whole of the southern hemisphere? Let me try to give the House the right answer, as I believe my answer to be. The nuclear-free zone in Latin America is a continental nuclear-free zone. It is a zone created in an area where the free world does not at the present time mount a nuclear deterrent. Therefore the declaration of such a zone in that area will not involve any imbalance in the nuclear deterrents of the free world. But if you fall for the Labour policy of a unilateral nuclear-free zone in the whole of the southern hemisphere you create at once, as I have pointed out here, a significant imbalance in the nuclear deterrents of the whole free world. If my friends opposite who are interjecting cannot understand that, Mr. Speaker, they are beyond understanding.

I want to get to the main subject of my speech to-night.

Dr J F Cairns:

– Do you mean the prepared part?


– J will not read it, as the honorable member for Wills did. One of the fundamental questions for the Government and the Opposition is whether this country should accord diplomatic recognition to red China and should support the admission of that country to the United Nations. This question has been canvassed again and again in this House, particularly since 1955 when the Hobart conference of the Australian Labour Party made its important decision on this point. Although previously it has been much canvassed here and has been referred to in this debate I propose to take a little time to put before the House my views on this question.

Honorable members on this side of the House say that diplomatic recognition of red China in the circumstances that exist to-day should not take place. The circumstances are that mainland China - the People’s Republic as it is called - will insist, as it has insisted in the past, upon the fundamental proposition that any country Which wants to have diplomatic relations with it must first abjure its recognition of Nationalist China. To establish diplomatic relations with red China a country must deny the right of Nationalist China to continue to exist as a sovereign country. That is the prime circumstance, and it is all-important. We on this side say plainly and simply that if that is the condition that is imposed by mainland China as the price of diplomatic recognition, the price is too high to pay, because to pay it involves dishonour. It would involve denying the sovereign right of the people of Formosa to continue their existence as a nonCommunist or anti-Communist power.

Mr L R Johnson:

– We are trading with China.


– It is said on the other side of the House that we are feeding the people of red China. So we are, to a limited extent, by trading with red China in wheat. But the fact that we do this does not carry with it as a necessary consequence that we must recognize red China to the point, which necessarily goes with recognition, of denying the sovereign right of the people of Formosa to continue their separate anti-Communist existence.

Mr Reynolds:

– This is just a lot of double talk.


– We have heard so much from the other side of the House that I am surprised that the honorable member has the temerity to say that. We say that it is perfectly legitimate to continue to trade with red China in wheat and such commodities because, as the honorable member for Wills pointed out, there are empty bellies to be filled and, as might also be pointed out, if we did not supply wheat to red China on trading terms somebody else would. So why should not this country do that?

In the history of diplomatic precedents there is no justification for concluding that trade carries with it, as a necessary consequence, diplomatic recognition. We say that if diplomatic recognition means that we must throw overboard the people of Formosa, that price is not a price that any country with a sense of honour should pay. The criticism that I would wish to level at honorable members opposite - and I shall try to do it objectively - is this: They do not face up to the fact that red China imposes upon us the condition of diplomatic recognition that we must cast aside the people of Formosa. It is interesting that they should not face up to it at this stage of their careers, because if one goes back in the annals of this Parliament one observes that as long ago as. 1950 Dr. Evatt faced up to the problem. He said -

The recognition of the Communist Government of China need not carry with it recognition in respect of Formosa. I see no difficulty at alt about such a practical distinction being made. I believe if that were done-

That is, recognition reserving the rights of Formosa -

  1. . it would be an enormous advantage from the trading point of view.

It is interesting to observe that fourteen years ago the then Leader of the Opposition saw nothing wrong in trading with red China. He looked at the question of recognition upon the basis that the rights of Formosa deserved to be preserved, and that recognition was in aid of trade, lt is interesting to observe that in November, 1950, Dr. Evatt, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when asked by the then Minister for External Affairs, Sir Percy Spender, whether he proposed the immediate recognition of red China, said “ No “. He disavowed any intention of proposing the recognition of red China then.

Mr Uren:

– But we all progress in time, you know.


– I agree. The trouble is that on the other side a condition of atrophy sets in. What has happened since 1950 that dictates a change of the. attitude expressed by the learned doctor. I say, “ Nothing at all “. Remember, Sir, that 1 950 was very soon after the nationalist regime in Formosa had got itself established. Since then, it has become a viable, stable government, supported by its people. It is a government which has carried out a large and useful programme of land reform and a government under which many good people who happen to be anti-Communist have sheltered after escaping from mainland China. If there was no reason, as Dr. Evatt thought in 1950, to recognize red China, nothing that has happened since then has created any reason. In this age of ideological warfare in which we have the misfortune to be living, I could imagine nothing more damaging to the cause of freedom in South-East Asia than for this country to do an about-turn and accord diplomatic recognition to red China. The people of South-East Asia, who are trying to keep the flag of freedom - the antiCommunist flag- flying, would take this as being a sign that we thought the writing was oh the wall and that Chinese communism was destined to sweep this part of the world. The proposal advanced by the Opposition is dangerous for that reason, if for no other.

I want to examine a little more closely the attitude of the Opposition to recognition of red China. One is inclined to assume - I gather rightly - that the attitude of the Opposition in all matters of policy is .to be deduced from the decisions of Labour’s federal conferences. If we go back to the federal conference of 1961, the Perth conference, we see a somewhat interesting resolution. Paragraph 3 of the resolution of that conference on foreign affairs, as originally proposed - I ask the House to note, “ as originally proposed “ - was -

We support the recognition of the Chinese People’s Republic and its right to a place in the United Nations and the Security Council. We urge that a sympathetic and informed attitude . .

Mark the words “sympathetic and informed “ -

  1. . be taken to the problem of Formosa, and we urge a cessation of overt acts which continue to exacerbate and worsen the position.

Clearly the Australian Labour Party’s federal conference in 1961 -

Dr J F Cairns:

– That was in 1963.


– I think it was 1961. I am reading from an authentic copy. The conference said, “ We want to recognize red China “. lt added at first some almost meaningless, certainly ambiguous, rider about a sympathetic attitude to the problem of Formosa. One might ask at this point: Sympathetic to whom? The conference did not say. But this is made clearer as the proceedings of the conference emerged. A Mr. Mulvihill, who comes from New South Wales, I understand, and is one of the delegates to the conference, proposed that the sentence about a sympathetic and informed attitude to the problem of Formosa should be deleted and that the following sentence should be inserted in its place: -

That Formosa remain an independent State unless, by referendum of its population, conducted by the United Nations, it resolves to become a unit of continental China.

I would be the first to applaud Mr. Mulvihill, one of the delegates, for proposing that amendment, but it was not an amendment that found favour with the delegates. The amendment was not passed and the original equivocal, almost meaningless, sentence about taking a sympathetic attitude to the problem of Formosa was left in the ultimate resolution as agreed to by the conference. What does that mean? It means simply that the conference of 1961 was prepared to recognize red China as a matter of policy, even though it meant that Formosa should go to the wall and bc repudiated. That is the policy as it stood.

In that context, it is very interesting to observe that when the heat of the election battle was on last November, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), when making his policy speech, had this to say about the Chinese question -

We believe that the logic of international politics requires that Australia should follow the British practice and accord diplomatic recognition to Mainland China . . .

I ask honorable members to note the following words - with proper protection for the rights of the inhabitants of Formosa.

I always understood in my youthful innocence that any Labour leader enunciating a policy speech would be bound by the decisions of his federal conference and bound to follow the policy line laid down by that conference. So we have this situation: The Leader of the Opposition last November was mouthing vague words about proper recognition of the rights of Formosa in the consideration of any question of diplomatic recognition of red China, although his federal conference in 1961 - I add that the decision of the 1961 conference was reasserted in 1963 - decided that recognition should take place no matter what happened to Formosa. In assessing this election manifesto of the Leader of the Opposition, we have two choices to make. One is that he was playing a political hoax on the electorate, trying to make the electorate believe that Labour’s policy was other than that laid down by his conference, and the other is that he was showing - this is beyond possibility - a refreshing independence inasmuch as he was giving the go-by to his conference. I would prefer to believe that the former alternative is correct.

The Leader of the Opposition to-day made unfounded charges of political fraud against the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies). I would not go so far as to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of fraud, because with a legal background one does not presume to charge fraud unless one is satisfied in one’s conscience that there is a very strong case. All I say is that what the Leader of the Opposition said during the election campaign about his party’s policy on China was a misrepresentation or a political practical joke and not a very good one.


– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr Bryant:

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.


– Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Bryant:

– Yes. Early in his speech, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes) accused me of committing a breach of Standing Order No. 62. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would never break this standing order. It is one of my great sorrows that my writing is illegible.

Dr J F Cairns:

.- I thought the time would never arrive when I would find myself so completely in disagreement with an honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes). Over many years I have found myself in agreement with the gentleman who represented this electorate for so long. I regret that in his place we now have a man, a Queen’s Counsel, who has brought evidence here of the reason why the gaols are both necessary and full. I regret that this honorable gentleman, with his high standing in his profession, has with forethought and consideration been prepared to distort the arguments of his opponents in the way he has done here. If he does this in the courts, it is no wonder that the gaols are full. But he will not be able to do this here and get away with it.

His misunderstanding is based upon quite a number of factors. To begin with, he spoke about the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant), who made remarks about Labour’s policy with regard to a nuclear-free zone. I do not know whether the honorable member for Parkes is aware of the facts, but I hope to say a few words that will make it a little more difficult for honorable members on the other side of the House in the future to get away with this distortion of the meaning of a nuclear-free zone. The honorable member for Parkes said that it was impossible or difficult to have a nuclear-free zone in South-East Asia but that it was not difficult in Latin America because such a zone in Latin America would not upset the nuclear balance. He implied that the Americans had no nuclear weapons in the South American zone. But the Americans do have nuclear weapons in this zone. They have nuclear weapons at several bases in the South American zone, and they intend to keep them there, just as they will have, perhaps in a few years’ time when it is built, a radio station in north-western Australia which will be part of the Polaris system. A nuclear-free zone in Latin America, which the Americans have supported, will no more endanger their bases in Latin America than a similar agreement in South-East Asia would endanger their base at North West Cape.

A nuclear-free zone is an area in which the countries involved - we are concerned with the small countries - would agree not to obtain or manufacture nuclear weapons. This would not affect the operation or possession of nuclear weapons by the great powers. Would it not be a great advantage to achieve a nuclear-free zone of that sort in South-East Asia? Would it not be a great advantage to achieve a nuclear-free zone which would include Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand and the other countries? By agreement they would say that they would not receive or manufacture nuclear weapons, but the great powers would go on holding their nuclear weapons in their deterrent systems. This would not affect the American situation at all. I am tired of hearing repetitions of the deliberate distortion that was originated by the leader of the Government. It has been carried on by his fawning supporters ever since. I want discussion about a nuclear-free zone to be put on a solid base.

Another point about which the new member for Parkes tried to mislead us was the argument that the Government in Formosa is not a dictatorship. I could quote endless evidence to the contrary in this respect but I shall merely direct the attention of the House to a little of it. First I shall quote from the “ Daily Telegraph “.

As the “ Daily Telegraph “ never distorts the reactionary case but always distorts the progressive one, this assertion by that newspaper has added worth. The “ Daily Telegraph “ of 6th October, 1960, contained this statement -

The uproar caused by the arrest in Taipeh of Mr. Lei Chen, one of the three organizers of an opposition party to the Chinese Nationalist regime in Formosa, has served to reveal incidentally the personal unpopularity of Chiang Kai-shek abroad.

Again, in the Canberra “Times” of 21st October, 1960, this appeared -

Now, suddenly, political unrest has come to a boil. There is open opposition to Chiang’s party. The items in the Opposition leader’s indictment of the Kuomintang sound distressingly similar to the charges hurled against Syngman Rhee’s government in South Korea last spring: “ Rigged elections . . intimidations at the polls . . . corruptions . . . too much concentration of power . no freedom of the Press “.

That is the democracy of Taipei! Is the honorable member for Parkes ignorant of this? Or, is he aware of it and, being aware of it, is he willing to mislead the House? This is a debate upon foreign policy, and to prevent the occurrence of events . which would endanger or destroy the nation’s security, or to remove the conditions from which these events may come, is the objective of foreign policy.

We have heard a number of important contributions to this debate. I congratulate the new honorable member for New England (Mr. Sinclair) upon refraining from repeating the worn-out misleading cliches which honorable members on the other side of the House have used for political purposes for so long. The arguments about danger and threats to this country are put forward by honorable members on the Government side, not because they believe this to be the situation to-day, but because they believe that by creating that kind of political climate they will enhance their prospects of being elected to government. If they really believed that Australia was in danger to-day, would they have designed the kind of defence system that we now have after fifteen years of Liberal-Country Party government? If they believed that Australia was seriously in danger, would they be devoting only a mere 2.6 per cent, of the gross national product to the defence effort? I ask the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) to answer that question. Where, then, is the sincerity in the Government’s argument? There is no sincerity in it at all. It is the professional business of the parties opposite to reduce the country to an improper degree of fear and suspicion, for their own political advantage.

There is no defence against nuclear war; but the fact that there is no defence against it docs not mean surrender or appeasement. Nuclear war carr be prevented, and this is the first great threat with which we concern ourselves when we are considering foreign policy. Nuclear war can be prevented, because it has been prevented for twenty years. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been walking the tightrope over the abyss of nuclear threat for nearly twenty years, and they have walked that tightrope successfully. Now some stability has come about in the relations between those two great powers. Their relations have been established upon a basis which has enabled Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to say that co-existence is now a reality. This, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was something which I predicted fifteen or sixteen years ago. I set out the course of events which would lead to this situation. I will not bother mentioning the names of those hysteria creators on the other side of the House who attacked the statements which I made then and which I have repeated since. Suffice it to say that we have now reached the point at which we can say that relations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union have become stable and formalized.

The great problem that exists now is the emergence of China as a probable nuclear power. There are only two nuclear powers in the world to-day. France and Britain are not nuclear powers. The countries which are nuclear powers are those which have nuclear bombs and the power and capacity to deliver them. There are. only two such countries in the world. China may become a nuclear power some day, but that will be many years yet. The main thing to-day is to try to fit China into a position where her emergence as a nuclear power will not cause us again to have to walk for years the tightrope over the abyss of possible nuclear war. How can we do this? We have done it for twenty years now but only because the United States of America and the Soviet Union have recognized each other; only because they have been close enough to each other to know what the other was doing and only because they have both been members of the United Nations Organization.

How could we have overcome the terrifically dangerous problem of Cuba at the end of 1962 if those nations had not been close together in recognition, and if they had not been members of the United Nations Organization? How could we have solved that problem if it had not been possible for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to act as intermediary between them? How could we have solved that problem if Kennedy and Khrushchev had not been able to talk directly to each other and see to it that the problem was solved?

Recently 1 read a book of lectures by Willy Brandt who, as honorable members know, is the mayor of West Berlin. In one of them he said, “ The kind of relationship with communism that I want is the one that is illustrated by a game played in West Germany, which is similar to Indian wrestling “. In that game the two contestants stand each with his foot against that of another, each holding the other’s hand. Each is aware of the moyes that can be made by the other, and each can anticipate those moves. If, on the other hand, the contestants are far enough apart to stab unexpectedly at one another or to shoot at one another from cover there is great danger. The relationship in the wrestling game is the one that can prevent war between the great powers. That is the kind of relationship that has prevented war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

So we say that China should be brought into the United Nations and should be recognized. It does not matter whether Australia recognizes China or not; but it is vitally important that the United States of America should do so, and it is important that Australia should do everything possible to encourage the United States along those lines. It is the policy of the Australian Labour Party to recognize China and to admit her to the United Nations. I want to say just a word or two about what this means because it has been one of the most prolific sources of distortion and confusion, deliberately created by Government supporters for their own political advantage.

This policy means that we would attempt to maintain recognition of both Chinas, but if that were impossible, as it proved to be in the case of France - first because Nationalist China refused to accept recognition if mainland China were recognized, and secondly because of the attitude of the Government in Peking - then mainland

China should be recognized and admitted to the United Nations. If it is a case of one or the other, then mainland China must be admitted for the very vital reason that I have already given - the necessity to prevent nuclear war and so solve the world’s problems. If mainland China is admitted, Formosa will be sold out to nobody. The position would be that the Labour Party, the United States of America and everybody else with a true sense of appreciation of the situation would approve continuance of the cordon around Formosa to prevent any invasion of or interference with that country. Is it not a remarkable thing that for some fifteen years now the Government of mainland China has been prepared to accept the occupancy by Nationalist China of islands from 3 to 5 miles off her coast? What other great power in the world would accept that situation?

The position is that China has a record of great patience and a record of aggression. It is possible te formalize the relations that exist between China and the rest of the world, and it is vital that that should be done. If the Australian Labour Party were to become the Government to-morrow this is the course that I would support and it is the course that is implicit in the party’s policy. First we would send the Minister for External Affairs to the United States to impress upon the American Government how strongly we believe this policy to be right. And there are very many people in the United States of America who also believe it to be right. The United States of America is not made up of knuckle-headed reactionaries like the honorable member for Mackellar.


– Order! I think the honorable member should withdraw that remark.

Dr Cairns:

– I called him a reactionary. Since when has that word been an insult to the honorable member for Mackellar?


– Order!

Mr Uren:

– Since when have you been so thin-skinned?


– Order! The honorable member for Reid will withdraw that remark.

Mr Uren:

– I withdraw it.


– I think the honorable member for Yarra should withdraw the adjective that he used.

Dr Cairns:

– I very willingly withdraw the remark out of respect for and in deference to you. The policy of the United States of America is not a monolithic policy formulated by the Goldwaters and the reactionaries. The position which is occupied by the United States is that of a great country which has had traditional leadership in liberalism and progress for a century. There is a great deal in the United States in which we on this side of the House could fully co-operate. I should like to see Australia making a liberal and progressive contribution to that policy, not a reactionary and out-of-date one.

There are two other threats with which foreign policy must concern itself. I do not believe that we should move around this country and treat Indonesia as an enemy. The historical situation is that danger to Australia can come only from the north, but I do not believe that we should necessarily attach to that danger the name of any particular country. To meet a threat of this kind, the first requirement is to bring our defence policy into line. Our defence policy is not designed to produce a defence against such a threat. I outlined my views on this subject last week and I do not intend to cover the ground again. For fourteen years this Government has failed to give us a defence structure that is designed to meet the classic threat to the Commonwealth.

Indonesia is not hostile to Australia. It is almost impossible to find in Indonesia any evidence- of hostility to us. Indonesia’s traditional attitude has been an anti-Dutch one, an anti-imperialist one. The series of incidents that occurred over West Irian were consistent with that interpretation. To-day Australia is a strong country in South-East Asia. When one looks at the production figures for Indonesia and Australia, one finds that the only comparable industrial commodity is coal. In 1962 Australia produced 25,000,000 tons of coal while Indonesia produced 471,000 tons. We know what is Australia’s steel production and the size of our chemical industry. Indonesia has no such industries. It is true to say that Indonesia’s population is eight times the size of that of Australia, but our industrial capacity is ten times as great as that of Indonesia. We can defend ourselves against any possible threat that comes from the north. Unless we start with that assumption, we will never have a foreign policy that is worth having. Unless we start with that assumption, we will never have the independence, the initiative and the objective capacity to formulate a foreign policy that will work.

I believe that the Malaysian problem will be solved peacefully. The sooner the United Nations has something to do with the problem the sooner it will be solved. In my opinion, we should seek to make agreements with Indonesia in relation to trade and other matters such as nuclear weapons. The superficial argument advanced by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) that Indonesia would not listen to such a suggestion because she is nonaligned does not hold water for one second, We could make agreements with Indonesia which would not align her in any way. We have made agreements with many countries. We have sold wheat and wool to many countries. Has the fact that we have entered into agreements to sell wool and wheat to China altered China’s position? We would not change Indonesia’s position by doing this kind of thing.

I have very little time left in which to deal with my final point. The third kind of threat which faces Australia is that of the revolutionary situation in other countries. Let me reiterate what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) said earlier to-day. There are two interpretations of what occurs in countries in which a revolutionary situation exists. The first is that there is a terrorist gang which roams the country, which is supplied by Communist countries, and which can be defeated only by military methods. This is the kind of assumption which underlies the attitude of this Government to countries like South Viet Nam. That is a wrong interpretation. It is true that there are guerrilla bands, but they are predominantly indigenous. The very nature of guerrilla warfare has shown that to be successful it must be indigenous. John Foster Dulles, Mao Tse-tung and Fidel Castro, all agree upon this. Let me quote the following comments by W. W. Rostow, an adviser to President Kennedy and now to President Johnson -

What is happening throughout Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia is this: old societies are changing their ways in order to create and maintain a national personality on the world scene and to bring their peoples the benefits modern technology can offer. This process is truly revolutionary. It touches every aspect of traditional life: economic, social and political.

Unless we are prepared to realize that what is going on in these countries is precisely as Mr. Rostow has said, we will never succeed in dealing with the situation. We will have failures where we use the Korea method and the South Viet Nam method. We have not much time left. We must apply this kind of analysis to countries like Cambodia and Laos where there are still prospects of success.


– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Turnbull) adjourned.

page 727


Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 727


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to industry proposals for a plan of meat market development and diversification and to reconstitute the membership of the Australian Meat Board. The classes of meat covered by the legislation are beef and veal, and mutton and lamb. Pigmeats have not been included as the main pig producer organizations have advised that they do not wish to be included in an integrated meat scheme and they are now currently considering a separate plan for pig research.

The increasing importance of the great industry in our economy is well known. Sheep and cattle numbers have been increasing and rising private investment in the industry coupled with Government development projects now being undertaken points to a continuation of the rapid development which has been achieved in the post-war period in this industry. Australian beef and mutton exports have risen considerably in recent years. In 1957-58 exports of these classes of meat totalled 144,800 tons shipped weight compared with 321,800 tons in 1962-63. However, a true appreciation of the position required a comparison of the figures on the basis of the bone-in-weight equivalent as Australian beef and mutton exports are now shipped mainly in the boneless form, whereas in 1957-58 they were shipped mainly in the bone-in form. The bone-in-weight equivalent of our beef and mutton exports in 1962-63 totalled 498,000 tons compared with 164,000 tons in 1957-58. This is truly a remarkable Increase. In 1962-63 beef exports represented 44 per cent, of total beef production, and mutton exports 31 per cent, of mutton production. While lamb production has increased from 152,000 tons in 1957-58 to 228,000 tons in 1962-63, it has declined in importance as an export item as the per capita consumption of lamb in Australia has shown a substantial increase.

Coupled with the substantial increase in exports that has occurred in recent years there has also been a marked change in the pattern of our trade. Whereas previously the United Kingdom was traditionally our major market for beef, mutton and lamb, the bulk of our beef and mutton exports have recently been concentrated on the American market. In 1962-63, 81 per cent, of our beef exports and over 50 per cent, of our mutton exports were shipped to the American market. The high level of our exports, the rapidity of their increase and the fear of Austalia’s future export potential has been a matter for considerable apprehension amongst United States producers. This apprehension has led to the meat agreement recently concluded between Australia and the United States. While this agreement now assures us of stable market opportunities for an important proportion of our meat export surplus, there are factors associated with the world meat market situation which, coupled with our rising meat production potential, point to the need for the introduction of a market development scheme on the lines proposed in order to safeguard and advance the welfare of the Australian meat industry.

Most of the world trade in meat consists of supply by surplus countries in the southern hemisphere - Australia, Argentina and New Zealand - to the established deficit areas of the northern hemisphere - the United States of America, Europe and the United Kingdom. In Europe, the policies being followed by most countries extend encouragement to expanded domestic meat production. Whilst some policies are frankly protectionist, there is a strong body of opinion that production will not meet future demand due to an improvement in European living standards.

In the United Kingdom there are the problems which have been created for overseas suppliers by the operation of the price support arrangements for domestic producers in that country. These arrangments have increasingly restricted the size of the market for overseas suppliers. Under the present trading conditions, the scope for expanding our meat trade with other countries is limited by factors such as exchange restrictions, quantitative restrictions for protective reasons, or by the low purchasing power of the less developed countries. Nevertheless, there are some markets, particularly the Japanese market, which appear to have considerable potential if developed on the right lines. In this situation, close and urgent attention to ways and means of preserving existing markets and developing new markets is clearly called for to enable a continued expansion of the Australian meat export trade. The scheme will ensure a balanced approach to the whole meat marketing position as it also includes provision for the preservation and expansion of the domestic meat market which, as is well known, is the sheet anchor of the Australian meat industry.

The meat market development provisions of this bill are based on joint proposals which were submitted by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and the Australia Wool and Meat Producers Federation. The general principles of the plan have also been approved by the Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council.

The basic element of the industry proposals is the establishment of a fund by way of a levy on cattle, sheep and lamb slaughterings to provide the necessary finance to undertake additional measures to develop new markets. Provision has therefore been made in the accompanying legislation for the finance to be collected by way of a statutory levy which will be imposed on all cattle over 200 lb. dressed weight, sheep and lambs slaughtered within Australia for human consumption. The current charge which is imposed on meat exports will be repealed and the new slaughter levy will subsume the existing beef research levy. As with the beef research levy, the incidence of the levy will be borne by the producer and provision has been made in the legislation for meat operators and selling agents to have the legal right to pass back the incidence of the levy at the time the stock are purchased for slaughter. The levy will apply from a date to be proclaimed and the operative rate will be prescribed on the recommendation of the Australian Meat Board after consultation with the main industry organisations concerned and the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee.

The funds which are collected for purposes other than beef research will be administered by the Australian Meat Board. In a normal year a levy of 5s. per head on cattle and 6d. per head on sheep and Iambs would provide an industry contribution of about £1,700,000. For the purposes of comparison, it is mentioned that in 1962- 63 the amounts collected from the meat export charge and the beef research levy were £219,000 and £406,000 respectively.

The board will be permitted to use the funds collected for purposes other than research to undertake additional measures to develop overseas markets for Australian meat. In addition, the funds shall be used by the board in accordance with its present powers to undertake additional meat promotion in Australia and overseas. There is also power for the board to purchase and sell meat in its own right after consultation with the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council where there are special marketing problems or market circumstances which preclude the effective participation of private trades. To provide a forum for consultation on this matter, provision has been made, at the expressed wish of the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council, for a consultative committee comprising four members from each of the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council and the Australian Meat Board plus the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board. The Meat Board, however, shall, on receipt of the report of the consultative committee, have the final decision in determining whether it shall exercise its trading powers for the purpose of market development in the circumstances referred to above.

The Government has decided to extend the industry proposals which were limited to the provision of trading powers for meat market development by also providing for the Australian Meat Board to purchase and sell meat with the approval of the Minister for the purpose of administering any international undertakings to which Australia may be a party. This will ensure that the Commonwealth will be in a position to undertake certain commitments on meat, for example the observance of minimum import prices, if a commodity arrangement for meat is formulated out of the current Kennedy round or other international negotiations. At present the Australian Meat Board has power, subject to the direction of the Minister, to purchase and sell meat on behalf of the Commonwealth. The new provisions for board trading powers will, of course, replace this particular section of the existing legislation. To enable the Australian Meat Board to obtain working funds for the exercise of its powers the board will be empowered to obtain advances from the Reserve Bank under guarantee from the Government.

One element of the joint industrial proposals contained provision for a research scheme for beef, mutton and lamb under the administration of the Australian Meat Board. However the Australian Agricultural Council has expressed certain reservations on the matter and the Government has decided, in the circumstances, to defer this aspect of the proposals. The current arrangements for beef research will be continued. However, it is the intention of the Government eventually to introduce a research scheme for mutton and lamb along with the current beef research scheme and, whilst the question of its direction and administration will be pursued further with all interested bodies, it is the Government’s policy that marketing, promotion and research will be all brought under the administration of the reconstituted Meat Board.

It is also proposed to reconstitute the membership of the Australian Meat Board to provide for a more compact and workable board as the present board is considered to be too large and diverse in its representation for efficient operation and as a result has had to resort to a committee system to process its major issues. The existing legislation provides for a board of twelve members comprising a chairman and Government representative, two beef producer representatives, three lamb producer representatives, one mutton producer representative, one pig producer representative, two meat exporter representatives, one public utilities representative and one meat industry employees’ representative. The Australian Meat Board which will be established under this bill will consist of nine members comprising a chairman, five meat producer representatives, two meat exporter representatives and a representative of the Commonwealth.

A new feature of the proposed legislation provides for the chairman of the board to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee, and for the five meat producer representatives to be appointed by the Minister from a panel of names submitted by the selection committee. The two meat exporter representatives will be appointed by the Minister from a panel of names submitted by the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council.

The Australian Meat Board Selection Committee referred to above is not a statutory authority and was constituted jointly by the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation on the 27th February, 1964, for the purpose of this legislation. The main function of the selection committee will be the nomination of the meat producer representatives for appointment to the Australian Meat Board. It consists at present of nine members comprising four each from the council and the federation and an independent chairman. Provision has been made, however, in the constitution of the selection committee for the admission of new member organizations. Members of the board will be appointed for a period of three years. However, the initial appointments of the five meat producer representatives and the two meat exporter representatives will be made for varying periods - one, two and three years - which will enable members to retire in rotation.

The membership proposals will mean a reduction in the producer representation from seven to five members and the existing specific representation for beef, mutton, Iamb and pigs will be replaced by “ meat “ producer representation. It will also exclude the representation from public utilities and the meat employers union.

On the question of exporters’ representation, proposals were received from the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council for a reconstituted board of nine members comprising a chairman, four producer representatives and four exporter representatives. The importance of having commercial representation has been recognized in the proposed legislation but it was considered that the federation’s request for equal producerexporter representation could not be justified in a situation where the costs of the board’s operations will be met entirely from funds provided by producers. The Government has also received representations for membership of the board for representatives of public utilities and of producer organizations such as the Australian Primary Producers Union and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. In the case of public utilities, while recognizing the importance of works such as Cannon Hill, Homebush, Flemington, Victoria, and Gepps Cross as killing centres, the Government has felt that the essential point is that these works are not associated with the actual marketing of meat and has decided not to provide for their representation on the board.

The requests for membership on the board by the A.P.P.U. and the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation have received full consideration by the Government but it is the Government’s policy that the meat board should not be an organizational board. It is therefore not prepared to agree to direct representation for the A.P.P.U. or any other organization on the board. This would be contrary to the principle that it has induced the two main produced organizations to adopt, namely, that the producer representation should be selected on the basis of the best men available. The main qualification for the selection of members is that they should be nominated for their ability and experience rather than their organizational affiliation.

Insofar as the selection committee is concerned the Government accepts the approach whereby the producer organizations decide the composition of their selection body. However, it considered that it would be appropriate, and indeed urges, that other representative organizations should also be included in the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee. A similar procedure to this was followed in the case of the Wool Industry Conference and I confidently expect that shortly the A.P.P.U. will receive membership of that industry body. Similarly in the case of the Australian Meat Board Selection Committee, the Government feels that the matter should be resolved by negotiation between the A.P.P.U. and the other two organizations.

Without doubt the continued prosperity of the Australian meat industry is bound up with the necessity of ensuring that satisfactory arrangements are made for the development and diversification of Australia’s meat export markets. This is related particularly to the current strong pressures which are being exerted on the United States Government to introduce legislation to restrict United States meat imports to the average of imports over the last five years. At present there are developments in the overseas meat market situation which will result, at least in the short term, in a considerable alteration in the Australian meat export pattern and involve a considerable reduction in beef and mutton shipments to the American market. The factor which has caused this is a strengthening in demand from the United Kingdom, especially for quality meat, and from some European markets, in particular Greece and Italy. The situation reflects to a large extent the shortage of Argentine marketings.

On the basis of estimates which have been supplied by representatives of meat exporters and ship-owners, it is expected that meat shipments to the United Kingdom and European destinations for the period January to June, 1964, will be in the vicinity of 59,000 tons compared with 18,600 tons for the same period last year. Shipments to North America for the first six months of 1964 have been estimated at 70,400 tons compared with 126,500 tons last year. This is a very considerable reduction and should be recognized as such by American producers.

On the basis of these estimates arrangements have now been made by shipowners to divert five vessels from the American run and elsewhere to handle the added tonnages for the United Kingdom and European destinations concerned. The reduced supplies from Australia is also having a considerable effect on United States prices for Australian boneless manufacturing meat. Prices have risen considerably over the last ten weeks and are now at their highest level since January, 1962. This movement of prices which is contrary to the movement in prices for domestic-fed cattle clearly illustrates that there is a separate and unfilled market in the United States for the boneless, lean frozen meat which is imported from Australia. The major part of these imports do not compete directly with United States domestic-fed beef, the over-production of which has been recognized by official sources as being mainly responsible for the current market situation in the United States.

Finally, I should mention that while one of the basic objectives of the industry proposals is to avoid wherever possible the use of export quotas, it is pointed out that if such measures were required a number of meatworks in the northern areas heavily dependent on exports could be seriously affected should quotas be applied on a percentage basis over a base period. It is the policy of the Government that if quantitative restrictions should be required on Australian meat exports the basis for fixing the quotas should be subject to the approval of the Minister in consultation with the Australian Meat Board. An appropriate provision has been made in the legislation to provide for this.

The present act has been in force since 1935 and has been amended from time to time. In view of the extensive amendments necessary to the existing legislation it has been decided to repeal the act in its entirety and to introduce new legislation.

The Government believes that this bill will provide the Australian meat industry with the most effective means of furthering its interests in the long term.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 731


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy upon the slaughter of certain livestock for human consumption. The money so collected will be used to finance the meat market development plan which I have outlined in my second-reading speech on the Meat Industry Bill 1964 and also the existing cattle and beef research scheme. The levy will replace the current charge imposed on meat exports from the Commonwealth and it will subsume the existing cattle and beef research levy.

The rate of levy to be imposed will be prescribed by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Meat Board after consultation with the main industry organizations concerned, and the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee. It will be payable on all cattle of more than 200 lbs. dressed weight, and on sheep and lambs slaughtered within Australia for human consumption.

The levy will be payable by the person who owns the livestock at the time when the slaughter takes place. As with the beef research levy, provision has been made in the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill for meat operators and selling agents to have the legal right to pass back the incidence of the levy at the time the stock are purchased. I commend the bill to honorable members as a necessary complement to the Meat Industry Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 731


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the levy imposed by the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1964. It extends the present provisions for the collection of the slaughter levy on cattle for the purposes of beef research to include sheep and lambs.

Both this bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill need to be read in conjunction with the Meat Industry Bill 1964. I have already referred in more detail to the meat market development proposals with which they are concerned in my second-reading speech on the Meat Industry Bill. 1 commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 732


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Meat Export Charge Act 1935-1954 which is the act that provides for the imposition of the existing charges on meat exports from the Commonwealth. The money so collected has been used to finance the operations of the existing Australian Meat Board.

As mentioned in my second-reading speech on the Meat Industry Bill, it is now proposed that the reconstituted Meat Board shall derive its revenue from the live-stock slaughter levy proposed in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1964. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 732


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Cattle Slaughter Levy Act 1960 which is the act that provides for the existing cattle slaughter levy used to finance the cattle and beef research scheme.

As mentioned in my second-reading speech on the Meat Industry Bill, the present cattle slaughter levy will be subsumed by the live-stock slaughter levy proposed in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1964 and the money so collected will bc used to finance the meat market development plan and the existing cattle and beef research scheme. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 732


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make two amendments to the Cattle and Beef Research Act 1960-1961 which is the act that establishes the Cattle and Beef Research Trust Account. The first of the proposed amendments provides that the portion of the amounts received under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill to be paid into the trust account is to be prescribed. This is a machinery amendment as the proposed levy under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1964 will also be used for purposes other than cattle and beef research.

The second of the proposed amendments provides that the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee will make recommendations to the Australian Meat Board, instead of to the Minister as at present, on the rate of the levy to be presented from time to time on cattle under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1964. This is a consequential amendment to the provisions contained in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill for the method of prescribing the rate of the levy proposed under that bill. I have already referred to these provisions in my second-reading speech on that bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 733


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make minor amendments to the provisions of the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Act 1955- 1956 which is the act relating to the distribution of deficiency payments received under the fifteen years meat agreement.

The amendments include appropriate references to the relevant provisions in the Meat Industry Bill 1964. The opportunity has also been taken to repeal a section of the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Act which is no longer necessary by reason of the passage of time. Thebill also provides for the substitution of the name of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the Commonwealth Bank.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 733


Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the repeal of two sections of the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act as the operation of these sections has ceased by the passage of time. The opportunity has been taken to make these amendments and the bill has no policy significance. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 733


Shipping-“ Lolita “-Royal Australian Air Force

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.


.- I want to refer again to the trouble in Tasmania with shipping space. Yesterday I asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Freeth) a question about the shortage of shipping space to transport cargo from Hobart and Launceston. I mentioned the serious situation that had arisen. I asked the Minister whether he knew that there were 900,000 super feet of timber in Hobart, and that arrangements have been made for only about half of it to be taken by the normal shipping services from Hobart to Melbourne. I asked him also whether he was aware that Tasmanian timber producers were losing good sales mainly because there was an alarming shortage of shipping space. I pointed out that two years ago our timber industry had been slowed down to a walk by the credit squeeze. At that time we had plenty of ships but very few markets. To-day we have plenty of markets, fortunately, but not enough ships.

I asked the Minister to investigate the possibility of the Australian National Line supplying another cargo ship to carry the produce of our island to the mainland, where it was desperately needed. His reply was to the effect that we would watch and wait and see how the positron developed when the Union Steam Ship Company’s roll-on roll-off ships were taken onto the Tasmanian run. I have discovered that one of those ships is due to commence much earlier than I had expected. It is called the “ Seaway Queen “. It is the first of the Union Company’s ships to go on the run, and it will operate from Hobart. The second Union ship will also ply from Hobart. This is one of the reasons why the Australian National Line is leaving it very late to announce certain details about the routine of the “ Empress of Australia “.

As I have said, those two ships will go to Hobart and will solve the problem there. The “ Empress of Australia “ also will be on that run, and so the position will be greatly relieved. Hobart will then be in a pretty sound position for shipping space. But in the north the situation at the present time is quite serious. One of the shippers rang me at 9 o’clock this morning, and told me that he had started the practice of shipping to Melbourne complete sets of timber and scantlings for whole houses. It seems that he sends four to six complete houses to Melbourne each week. They are picked up in Melbourne by big semitrailers and taken onto the building sites up to twenty miles from Melbourne. This is a wonderful idea. He is the only shipper following this practice. It is convenient and provides quick service, and I think the homebuilder would find it cheaper. But if it is to be successful the houses must be shipped in complete lots, as complete units. At the present time, because of the shortage of shipping in Launceston, some of the units are being split up, and the whole system has been breaking down. The builders on the mainland who work on a tight schedule must be assured of completely reliable deliveries. These houses must come over as complete units.

I have also been in touch with Mr. Mercovich of the Australian National Line. He told me to-day that the line has not another ship to put on the Tasmanian run, either from the north or from the south. It has two ships operating at the moment which it regards as extra ships. They are moving potatoes from the north-west coast of Tasmania. We are glad to have that service, but the fact remains that these ships cannot be diverted for timber. Interestingly enough, last week the “Kootara” and “Merino”, fully loaded, came in from Newcastle and Sydney to Launceston with a variety of cargo for Tasmania. Both vessels discharged their cargoes in Launceston and then left the port without loading a single ton of cargo, although a good deal of cargo had accumulated for the Sydney market. The two ships went to the northwest coast and I think they loaded potatoes. When they departed, they left timber on the wharves which was urgently needed in Melbourne.

As honorable members know, builders to-day are very fussy. They can pick up timber almost immediately, and the supplier of timber who is regular and reliable and gives good quality will get their trade.

Mr Nixon:

– Those suppliers come from Gippsland.


– I quite agree, I lived there for a number of years and I know the quality of timber that comes from Gippsland. The point is that the builder must have regular supply. Ships must arrive at set times and transport arrangements must be reliable. If a builder does not get the required service he will go elsewhere. Tasmanian timber suppliers are on a razor’s edge at the moment because of the shortage of shipping space.

Mr. Mercovich suggested that “ Bass Trader “ did not always leave Bell Bay fully loaded. She is a wonderful addition to the Australian National Line, a roll-on roll-off vessel that brings fully-loaded freighters across the Strait. The freighters roll off the ship and go to their destinations in Tasmania . Some of the freighters might be used to bring back timber on the “Bass Trader “. Mr. Mercovich will do his best to see that space is made available on “ Bass Trader “ for timber that has had to be left because private enterprise cannot move it.

The two ships providing the service at the moment for private enterprise from Launceston to the mainland are “William Holyman “ and “ Tarina “. “ William Holyman “ is a very fine, modern ship, which handled the trade until the last four to six months, but which has now found that the volume of cargo is beyond her capacity. For that reason the company this week put on the second ship, “Tarina”, which normally takes timber from Launceston to Adelaide. The company put that ship on the Launceston to Melbourne service, but still there remains half a shipload of timber on the Launceston wharf. This shows how the market in Victoria is expanding, while the shipping space is not expanding to cope with the market. I make no apology for speaking for Tasmania on this point because shipping is our only form of transport to the mainland other than air transport which handles not more than 5 per cent, of inward and outward cargo. We have no roads or railways connecting us with other States. We must rely on shipping services. That is why it is desperately urgent that our shipping services should be reliable and adequate for Tasmania’s needs, for cargoes not only of timber but also of paper pulp and many other commodities.

Although the Minister promised us nothing yesterday and gave a very barren reply to the question I put to him, I think that if the Australian National Line comes to our rescue, especially with “ Bass Trader “, we may steer clear of a crisis. If the “ Seaway Queen “ comes on to the Hobart run it will release the “ Lemana “, which is trading between Hobart and the mainland at the moment, for the service to Launceston. The problem could be solved if the “ Lemana “ were to go to Launceston. My colleagues and I will keep fighting on this issue to ensure that Tasmania is not left stranded and that an adequate shipping service to cater for our growing markets is provided.

Mr Allan Fraser:

– I wish to mention a few matters, Mr. Speaker, which the Government might care to ponder during the recess. First, I wish to deal with the novel “ Lolita “. This novel which has been banned in Australia has, at the same time, been prescribed as required reading for students taking a course at the university. We thus have the paradox that a book banned for adults as corrupting and debasing, under the authority of this Parliament, is at the same time prescribed as healthful and valuable by the university standing only a few hundred yards or a few minutes’ walk from this building.

Mr Swartz:

– Was it prescribed by the university or by a staff member?

Mr Allan Fraser:

– It was backed by the university. There is still doubt whether the Government will allow the students at the university to read “ Lolita “, and therefore I want to make a few remarks on this matter. It would involve special permission for the university to import copies of this book. One issue is whether a book prohibited to parents as being obscene and debasing to them should be made available to teenagers as valuable and educational to them. Another issue is the question of academic freedom. I should say that it cannot be successfully argued that this is a proposal involving research by a competent scholar. The real issue, to my mind, is whether “ Lolita “ is so debasing and corrupting that the ban on it is justified. If that is the Government’s opinion, then the Government cannot properly make it available for teenage student reading. If the Government accepts the opinion of the university sponsors of this proposal that “ Lolita “ is a healthful work of literary value and importance, it should remove the book from the banned list for adult reading throughout Australia.

But the crux of the situation highlighted by this controversy is that no proper opportunities exist in Australia for testing the correctness of official censorship decisions. In theory, there is an appeal to the courts against censorship decisions, but in practice no effective appeal opportunity exists because an appellant cannot succeed in his appeal to the court by obtaining a judgment that the book is not obscene, or that it does not unduly emphasize sex and violence. What an appellant must show, if he wishes successfully to appeal against a censorship decision, is that the Minister has not formed an opinion that the book is of such a character. This, of course, places an utterly impossible task upon the appellant. The point, therefore, which I wish again to bring to the attention of the Government is that thelaw dealing with this matter should be amended so that all decisions of this kind can be properly tested in the courts of the country.

I wish to deal now, Mr. Speaker, with claims made by the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Pettitt) which came to my notice in reading the Yass “ Tribune “ of 6th February last. The Yass “Tribune” is a topical, bright, newsy and accurate newspaper which circulates widely in the electorate of Hume and also to some extent in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. It was therefore with very great astonishment that I read in it the following statement: -

Gundagai people can thank him -

That is, the new honorable member for Hume - for five additional trunk channels from that centre. The Gobarralong people are receiving the R.A.X. unit after years of waiting.

The article proceeded - I ask honorable members to remember that it was dated 6th February, just six weeks after this superman had been elected -

It must be remembered that these efforts were made by a brand new member even before Parliament had met.

I must exonerate the editor of the Yass “ Tribune “, because he did not write the article. As the honorable member for Hume will know, it appeared in the Tumut “Times”. The honorable member also knows who supplied it to that journal. The Yass “Tribune” acted in good faith in republishing it.

I thought to myself, “ If we have at last got on the parliamentary scene a man with these tremendous qualities, these amazing capacities to achieve great things for his electorate, I must find out how it is done so that I can apply similar methods in my electorate and also make them known to my colleagues from rural electorates throughout Australia “. So I wrote at once to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme). I gave him a report of what I had been informed, that five additional trunk channels had been provided to serve Gundagai and that a rural automatic exchange had been provided at Gobarralong. I asked him to let me know how it came about that these services were provided without much difficulty or delay, and also to let me know all the relevant dates. The Postmaster-General replied, and I received his letter to-day. It shows that the honorable member for Hume had nothing whatever to do with obtaining the five trunk lines for Gundagai and that in fact the rural automatic exchange is not to be provided for Gobarralong at all. I ask for leave to incorporate in “ Hansard “ the relevant passage from the Minister’s letter.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:

– Is leave granted?

Government supporters. - No.


– Leave is not granted.

Mr Allan Fraser:

– Then I shall read the passage. It is as follows: -

The Sydney-Melbourne coaxial cable which is routed by way of Gundagai and Jugiong was designed to provide urgently needed circuit relief to the capital cities and more importantly to intermediate centres. . . . Since completing the laying of the cable in October 1961, the Post Office has been progressively equipping the coaxial tubes and providing circuits for handling calls to centres over the whole route. This project has been undertaken in five stages and the recent provision of five circuits between Sydney and Gundagai together with five lines between Gundagai and Jugiong was the final work required to bring this valuable cable asset to its maximum revenue earning capacity under present conditions.

The Post Office has been working on the matter since October, 1961, without any reference to the honorable member for Hume and without requiring assistance from him. As the letter shows, he had nothing to do with the result. If any credit is to be given it should be given to the previous member for Hume, Mr. Arthur Fuller.

I come now to the second claim made by the honorable member for Hume, that in five weeks he had achieved for the people of Gobarralong a rural automatic exchange for which they had been waiting for many years. I am sorry to tell honorable members that the Postmaster-General’s letter states -

Residents of Gobarralong have been requesting the installation of an automatic exchange since 1948 but the department has not been able to afford this work a sufficiently high priority to justify the installation in advance of other more urgent projects. A review of the immediate plans indicates that the automatic exchange cannot be made available out of the restricted supplies of equipment coming to hand. Some subscribers have been waiting for service for more than four years and limited line work has been undertaken to meet this requirement.

I do not think it is necessary for mc to make any comment other than to say, in fairness to the predecessor of the present honorable member for Hume, that he worked hard and strenuously in the interests of his . electorate and claimed credit for nothing “which he had not done. It would be a very good idea if his successor, during his short stay among us, set himself out to follow t&at example.


.- I do not propose to keep the House very long. I wish to refer to a very important matter which should be of interest to all members, particularly to the Minister for Air (Mr. Fairbairn). I asked a question of the Minister and received a reply from him on 10th March, 1964. I asked the Minister whether his attention had been drawn to reports from the Western Australian State Shipping Authority and from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association that spotter aircraft could provide more up-to-date weather forecasts, especially in the cyclone belt. I also asked whether he would make aircraft available for this purpose and for reconnaissance on the west coast. In part, the Minister’s reply read -

The matter of providing service aircraft for spotting and reconnaissance for weather purposes cannot, of course, be considered only in relation to the West Coast of Australia since the whole of the hinterland of Australia and ils territories is involved.

The task of accurately reporting weather conditions on such a scale would involve the R.A.A.F. in the purchase of new specially equipped aircraft and the creation of a special weather squadron. Even a very modest plan of aerial reconnaissance for this purpose could only be undertaken at the expense of the operational efficiency of the R.A.A.F. The R.A.A.F. will continue to provide assistance to. the Bureau of Meteorology when it is practicable to do so without detriment to the service flying programme.

Similar stereotyped replies have been received from the Minister’s department when this matter has been raised previously. 1 think the best way to deal with the Minister’s reply is to quote from an editorial of the ‘West Australian” of 16th March, 1964. The heading is, “Canberra’s Blind Eye for W.A. Service Needs”. The editorial states -

In his stereotyped reply to a parliamentary question by Mr. H. C. Webb about the need for R.A.A.F. weather reconnaissance flights on the W.A. coast Air Minister Fairbairn made the Government and himself look foolish. Here is a duty that the Government should willingly undertake in a lonely part of the continent where shipping, towns, stations and other property are regularly exposed to cyclonic fury. .The need will become more pressing as northern development proceeds. It should have been recognized long ago as a routine national obligation. Mr. Fairbairn says that such a service would upset the operational efficiency of the Air Force unless specially equipped planes were acquired. Since the Indian Ocean is much more ominous strategically than the Pacific, West Australians would like to know how the Air Force would be prejudiced if a squadron of Neptunes were transferred to the west coast for multi-purpose duties.

If, however, the Neptunes are poised to resist an attack from New Caledonia or Tonga, the Government has the alternative of buying civilian planes and equipping them for forecasting and search operations. The subject raises the curious indifference of Canberra to W.A. where the defence services are involved. Apart from the need for regular long-range patrolling of northern waters, the Air Force should not only be meeting Mr. Webb’s request but also giving the fishing fleet a much stronger feeling of protection. A government that owes so much politically to defence should bc anxious to see the services discharge essential military and coast-guard duties

Events of the last day or so on the west coast have supported that attitude. A Swedish ship was missing for some time. Luckily it was found and not a great deal of harm occurred. However, it was lost for some time. When I raised that matter this morning I had not seen a copy of to-day’s “ West Australian “, which contains the headline, “ No R.A.A.F. Search for Ship off N.W. Coast”. The article under the headline states -

Last night R.A.A.F. chiefs in Sydney were debating whether to send Neptune bombers into the search. An R.A.A.F. spokesman at Pearce said yesterday that no search could be initiated from Pearce. A Dakota aircraft there had a range of about 1400 miles and no request had been made for its use.

I think it is a pretty serious state of affairs when no planes suitable for search work of this kind are based in Western Australia. Some time ago a squadron of Neptunes was stationed at Pearce but it was taken away from there by the Government. To me it seems ridiculous that when a ship is missing off the west coast, as was the Swedish ship, the R.A.A.F. has to consider sending a Neptune squadron from the eastern States. The article goes on to say -

An R.A.A.F. spokesman in Canberra said yesterday that Neptunes which had been used in other sea searches were all based either at Richmond in N.S.W. or Townsville in Queensland. They would have to be flown to W.A-. before they could begin a search.

What a stupid situation that is. Before a search can be commenced off the western seaboard, planes must be flown about 2,000 miles. I repeat that at one time a squadron of Neptunes was based at Pearce and .vas used for such purposes. I appeal to the Minister to see that a squadron of Neptunes is again stationed in Western Australia. My viewpoint has been supported by others. For instance, it has been supported by the president of the Western Australian Air Force Association. In a newspaper article of 12th March, 1964, it is stated -

The Federal Government should provide civil aircraft for weather reconnaissance flights off the W.A. coast, the president of the W.A. Air Force Association, Mr. H. E. Nicholls, said yesterday . . long range aircraft were needed and the cost would be high but the service was vitally necessary in W.A. The aircraft would be used primarily for weather forecasting, but they could also be used for rescue work in an emergency. Captain K. J. Reynolds, marine superintendant of the State Shipping Service, said a service would have to be started as the north of the State developed. He said: “ The fact that no aircraft are available for W.A. flights is a poor state of affairs “.

I hope that the Minister will have another look at this matter. First, it is suggested that a squadron of Neptunes should be stationed in Western Australia. If that is not possible, some other types of aircraft should be made available so that situations similar to the missing Swedish ship cannot arise. If it is possible to base Neptunes in the west, they can be used for the defence of the western coast. Alternatively, planes are needed for aerial reconnaissance, weather forecasting, the protection of the fishing fleet and the prevention of disasters at sea such as almost occurred in the last few days. No plane was available to go to the rescue if a serious situation had developed. I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Swartz) to convey my remarks to the Minister for Air so that the matter may be given every consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 7th April, at 2.30 p.m.

page 738


The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Unemployment. (Question No. 48.)

Mr Daly:

y asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. How many persons are registered as unemployed at the Newtown Unemployment Office?
  2. How many of those registered are (a) male and (b) female?
  3. How many of those registered are in each of the following age groups: - (a) under 21, (b) 21-30, (c) 31-40, (d) 41-50, and (e) over 50?
Mr McMahon:

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

  1. and 2. At 28th February, 1964, there were 351 males and 305 females registered for employment at the District Employment Office at Newtown. These were persons who claimed when registering that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced. The figures include those referred to employers with a view to engagement but whose placement had not been confirmed at 28th February and any who, since registering, may have obtained employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service. All recipients of unemployment benefit are included.
  2. The only available figures by age-groups are in respect of persons under 21 years and those 21 years and over. At the above date there were 49 males and 92 females under 21 years of age and 302 males and 213 females aged 21 years and over.

Medical Benefits. (Question No. 58.)

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

What is the average rebate expressed as a percentage of actual cost for (a) confinement cases, (b) a doctor’s visit to a patient’s home and (c) a consultation at a doctor’s surgery?

Mr Swartz:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: -

The fees charged by medical practitioners show considerable variation for individual services -

The most common fees charged for confinements range from £14 14s. to £21. These fees cover antenatal care, confinement and postnatal care for nine days. The usual benefit varies between 81.6 per cent. and 57.2 per cent. of the fee.

The common fee for a doctor’s visit to a patient’s home varies from 25s. to 35s. The usual benefit ranges from 64 per cent. to 46 per cent. of the fee.

The common fee for a surgery consultation ranges from £1 to £1 5s. The usual benefit represents 80 per cent. to 64 per cent. of the fee.

The “ usual benefits “ mentioned above refer to combined Commonwealth and fund benefits payable to contributors to the most popular tables under current entitlement. They do not take into account the proposed increase in the level of Commonwealth benefits which will be the subject of legislation that will be considered by Parliament this session.

Medical Practitioners. (Question No. 59.)

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Are Australian medical practitioners required to undertake any special training to quality to practise surgery?
  2. Are all general practitioners permitted to practise surgery without restriction and regard for competence?
  3. Has any Australian State instituted a register of surgeons; if so, what are the particulars?
  4. Does the Australian Medical Association or any Commonwealth or State authority keep a register of medical specialists?
  5. If so, what qualifications are necessary to enable a medical practitioner to be classified as a specialist, and who, in fact, classifies?
Mr Swartz:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: -

  1. Basic training at all Australian medical schools leads to the dual qualifications of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery. No medical practitioner is required to undertake post-graduate training in any branch of medicine.
  2. A medical practitioner, to be eligible for registration to practise in a State or Territory of Australia, must possess qualifications which are an assurance of competence. With the marked advance in surgery techniques over recent years it is now common for medical practitioners to refer surgical cases to specialists in particular branches of surgery where it is recognised that special post-graduate training is necessary, e.g. cardiac surgery.
  3. No, but see the reply to 4.
  4. Queensland maintains a register of specialists under the Medical Acts 1939 to 1963.
  5. An applicant for registration as a specialist in Queensland must satisfy the Medical Board to the effect that he has gained special skill in a particular specialty by adequate experience in that specialty. In relation to a specialty in which degrees or diplomas are generally granted or recognised, an applicant must also satisfy the Board that he is the holder of, or is justly entitled to have conferred on him, a degree or diploma approved by the Board in the specialty to which his application relates. The Board must be satisfied that the applicant has gained his special skill through three years at an approved hospital or five years in private practice, provided that in either case practice in the particular specialty comprised the major portion of the practice.

Drug Companies. (Question No. 60.)

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. How many drug companies are operating in Australia?
  2. What are the names of the companies which are wholly Australian-owned?
Mr Swartz:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: -

There are 119 companies in Australia which are manufacturers or suppliers of drugs that are listed as pharmaceutical benefits. Of these companies 70 are known to be owned or controlled by companies or persons outside Australia. Of the remainder some are wholly Australian owned, while others are controlled by persons or companies within Australia.

National Heart Foundation. (Question No. 61.)

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the National Heart Foundation of Australia was formed in 1960 to engage in heart research, rehabilitation of heart patients, and community and professional education?
  2. In what manner has the foundation embarked upon or assisted a research programme?
  3. Have any rehabilitation clinics been established; if so, where are they located, and what personnel are employed?
  4. What are the principal methods employed in educating the public about heart disease and the way to avoid it?
Mr Swartz:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: -

  1. Yes. The National Heart Foundation of Australia was incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory on 31st August, 1960, with objects that have been generally described by the honorable member.
  2. Following a nation-wide campaign the National Heart Foundation of Australia received a sum of £2,241,155 in cash and a schedule of promised donations of £112,395 - a total of £2,353,550. Before any part of this amount had actually been received by the foundation, applications had been invited from qualified persons for research grants for heart research in universities, hospitals and other research institutes. In September, 1961, grants were made of a total value of £232,481 in a wide range of activities. Further series of grants for research purposes were made in 1962 and in 1963. The grants for research purposes, approved to date, total £640,000 and it is expected that an annual sum of at least £200,000 will be allocated for research, for at least the next seven years. Grants for heart research are made in the form of -

    1. Grant-in-aid to provide technical assistance, equipment and running expenses for approved projects;
    2. Research fellowships and senior research fellowships to provide salaries for selected research workers;
    3. Overseas research fellowships and overseas supplementary grants to enable promising research workers to obtain experience overseas;
    4. Overseas travel grants to established clinicians and investigators for study visits overseas;
    5. Undergraduate medical research scholarships and vacation scholarships to encourage students to become interested in heart research;
    6. Certain special grants, including one for the establishment of a cardiac, diagnostic, research and rehabilitation unit in Hobart, and another for a readershipin cardiovascular research in the University of Western Australia.

Because of the complexity of the problems connected with heart disease, in its many forms, the subjects supported for research by the foundation cover a wide range, including fundamental physics and chemistry of heart muscle cells, mathematical studies of the wave motion of arterial pulses, electron microscope studies of the tissues of blood vessels, the pathological changes occurring in atherosclerosis, the role of the endocrine glands in controlling the circulation, clinical research into the treatment of coronary occlusion and rheumatic, congenital and other forms of heart disease, and the dramatic developments in the surgical attack on heart disease. Within these various categories, the foundation has, to date, made 212 separate awards to 142 research workers and students in over 30 institutions throughout Australia. The results of research sponsored so far have been published in over 100 scientific papers in medical journals throughout the world. Summaries of research in progress are published by the foundation each year, in book form. The declared policy of the foundation is to allocate a total sum of £300,000 per annum for research, rehabilitation and education, and so that it may continue to do this, as long as possible, with the money already subscribed, it keeps the balance of its capital fund invested at the most remunerative rate of interest, consistent with security. It has achieved an earning rate of not less than £5 10s. per annum. On this present policy of financing its programme from capital as well as interest, the foundation believes it can continue to support research and rehabilitation to this extent for at least ten years.

  1. It has been agreed between the foundation and the State Divisions that rehabilitation and education be carried out by the State Divisions and an annual sum of £100,000 is allocated for this purpose. In pursuance of this policy, rehabilitation clinics or “ Assessment Centres “ as the foundation prefers them to be known, have been established in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide, and in Hobart, the foundation has built, equipped and staffed a cardiac investigation unit which, in addition to carrying out rehabilitation and education programmes, is also providing a specialized cardiac diagnostic service in conjunction with the cardiac department of the Royal Hobart Hospital. In due course, it is expected that this unit will also undertake a research programme of its own. In Perth, the foundation is providing a rehabilitation service through a panel of medical referees acting in co-operation with the Commonwealth Employment Service and other special agencies. Cardiac rehabilitation services are therefore being provided in each State and, in addition, the foundation is following the practice of sending cardiac specialists to the Northern Territory and Papua-New Guinea each year, to give advice on treatment and generally to help with the special cardiac problems of those areas. These annual visits are sponsored with the co-operation of the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Department of Territories. The assessment and rehabilitation centres established by the foundation each employ a medical director on a part-time basis. The centres in Sydney and Melbourne employ cardiologists, and the Melbourne centre also employs a psychiatrist, all on a part-time basis. A full-time employment officer is employed in the Sydney and Melbourne centres. The centres in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide employ a social worker. In Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, the foundation’s assessment and rehabilitation centres actively co-operate with the Commonwealth Employment Service in securing suitable jobs for heart patients in the need of employment. Up to October, 1963, the foundation’s units in the various States had dealt with approximately 1,017 patients and of these, the foundation was instrumental in returning 690 to employment. A very large proportion of these patients had been unemployed for six months or more. Patients unemployed for up to six years have been successfully re-employed. The gain in productivity by the re-employment of cardiac sufferers attending foundation centres could be valued at tens of thousands of pounds each year.
  2. The foundation’s education programme conducted by its State divisions has two main aspects -

    1. The dissemination of information to the public on all aspects of heart disease and especially the nature of these diseases and the steps which can be taken to reduce their incidence and to lessen their ill effects;
    2. Bringing the latest information on advances in research and treatment of heart disease before the medical profession throughout Australia.

To achieve both ends, the foundation produces periodicals and pamphlets, which are distributed to the public and medical profession; an annual report, describing foundation activities; and “Research in Progress”, an annual report describing continuing research supported by the foundation. The foundation also arranges the publication of special articles in the press and . magazines, lectures, exhibitions and demonstrations, and radio and television talks and discussions. A film library, containing films suitable for presentation to both the public and the medical profession, has been established. Honorable members will appreciate that the National Heart Foundation is a private organization and although the Commonwealth Government was pleased to be able to make a substantial contribution towards initial campaign expenses it operates independently of government control. The information given in answer to the honorable member’s question was kindly supplied by the foundation itself.

Telephone Services. (Question No. 62.)

Mr L R Johnson:

son asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that telephone maintenance service is unobtainable over holidays and week-end periods?
  2. Are “out of service” telephones allowed to give a ringing-in signal?
  3. Is it possible to intercept these calls at some point to inform the caller that the line is out of order?
  4. Can a system of co-ordination be established at all telephone service complaint numbers to avoid callers being incorrectly informed; if not, why not?
  5. Is there any provision whereby telephone subscribers can obtain a refund of money paid for services in respect of long periods when a telephone service is allowed to remain out of order?
Mr Hulme:

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

  1. No. A fault restoration organization is available outside normal business hours which provides for fault clearance on urgent services to be given priority, and for faults on other services to be dealt with as soon as possible. On occasions, the Post Office is unable to give attention to faults on other than urgent services as quickly as it would like but it endeavours to minimise inconvenience to subscribers and to restore service at the earliest practicable time. Telephone services in the urgent category are those leased by essential public utilities or individuals with whom contact by telephone may be of vital concern to the community. Urgent treatment is also extended in cases of serious illness and the like.
  2. With certain types of faults it is unavoidable that ring tone is returned to callers. This feature is common to automatic switching equipment used extensively throughout the world.
  3. It is not practicable at present to intercept calls to all types of faulty services but consideration is being given to the purchase of equipment which will enable this facility to be extended.
  4. Procedures already provide for fault reports to be co-ordinated between Service Centres.
  5. Yes. Provision for such refunds already exists.

Broadcasting. (Question No. 77.)

Mr Hansen:

n asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice -

When will the national broadcasting relay station at Eidsvold be operating thus providing improved radio reception for the people of the South Burnett?

Mr Hulme:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

Equipment for the new national broadcasting station at Eidsvold has been ordered and, subject to deliveries being made by the contract dates, installation should be completed and the station should be ready for operation by August, 1965.

Television. (Question No. 78.)

Mr Hansen:

n asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice -

Can he indicate the estimated date for the opening of the national and commercial television stations in Wide Bay?

Mr Hulme:

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

Present plans are for the Wide Bay commercial television station to open during the second quarter of 1965 and the national station during the third quarter of the same year.

Broadcasting. (Question No. 79.)

Mr Hansen:

n asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Do persons in areas where radio reception is poor obtain broadcast listeners’ licences at a reduced rate?
  2. Can a similar concession be made in respect of television viewers’ licences where viewing is irregular and subject to interference? If not, why not?
Mr Hulme:

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

  1. Generally a lower fee applies in remote areas. Under the Broadcasting and Television Act, Australia and the Territories of the Commonwealth are divided into two zones for the purposes of the grant of broadcast listeners’ licences and the payment of fees for those licences. The annual fee is £2 15s. in Zone 1 which includes all places within a radius of 250 miles from the higher powered broadcasting stations and £1 8s. in Zone 2 which includes all places outside Zone 1. This zoning arrangement is possible in the case of broadcasting because, as a general rule, the grade of reception is directly governed by the distance of the receiver from a broadcasting station.
  2. No. Adoption of a similar scheme for television was found to be impracticable due to the varying factors which govern reception conditions on the very high frequencies employed by television stations and which include such things as the nature of the intervening terrain and the location and height of the receiver aerial. It would be extremely difficult to prescribe and police any reception standards for the purpose of granting licence-fee concessions because of those factors which, for example, may enable a viewer residing 150 miles from a transmitter to enjoy better reception than a person living less than half that distance away.

Egg Marketing Stabilization Scheme. (Question 87.)

Mr Beaton:

n asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Will the proposed Commonwealth egg marketing stabilization scheme provide for a levy based upon the number of birds kept by a poultry farmer?
  2. If so, will the levy be imposed upon (a) birds used exclusively for the production of fertile eggs for hatcheries and (b) birds raised for meat only.
Mr Adermann:

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

  1. Yes. The proposed scheme provides for a levy on hens over six months of age, with the first twenty hens in any one flock being exempt.
  2. It is proposed that all hens used for commercial purposes will be covered by the levy; however, provision will be made to enable specific classes of hens to be exempted from payment of the levy, on the recommendation of the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia. With regard to birds raised for meat purposes only, nearly all birds which arc sold for meat, are sold well before they reach the age of six months, and therefore they would not be liable to the proposed levy.

Pensions. (Question No. 27.)

Mr Collard:

d asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. How many (a) age, (b) invalid and (c) widows’ pensions are paid by cash through the (i) Esperance Post Office’, (ii) Kalgoorlie Post Office, (iii) Boulder Post Office, and (iv) Norseman Post Office?
  2. How many (a) age, (b) invalid and (c) widows’ pensions are paid by way of cheque to pensioners resident in (i) Esperence, (ii) Kalgoorlie, (iii) Boulder and (iv) Norseman?
Mr Roberton:

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: -

The Department of Social Services does not keep a separate record of pensioners by districts. The information sought in part 1. of the question could be obtained only by an approach to the postmasters concerned. To obtain the information in part 2. it would be necessary to examine many thousands of individual records to ascertain the addresses of the pensioners. All this would involve an undue amount of work which could not be justified.

Social Services. (Question No. 34.)

Mr Birrell:

l asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice -

  1. How many wives of age pensioners are ineligible for the pension because they have not reached 60 years of age?
  2. How many of these wives are receiving a pensioner’s wife allowance?
  3. How many married male age pensioners are in receipt of the additional 10s. per week single pensioner allowance because their wives are ineligible for a pension?
  4. What would be the total overall difference in cost if all wives of age pensioners’, regardless of age, were granted a full pension?
Mr Roberton:

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

  1. Information is not available as to the number of wives of age pensioners ineligible for pension

On account of age.

  1. On 10th February, 1964, there were 3,632 wives of age pensioners receiving wife’s allowance. This figure would include a small number of wives over 60 years of age who are ineligible for pension for reasons other than age.
  2. and 4. The information is not available.

Drugs. (Question No. 17.)

Mr Webb:

b asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that drugs in Australia are approximately three times dearer than in Britain?
  2. If so, what action is being taken to bring the cost of drugs in Australia into line with the cost in Britain?
Mr Swartz:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following answers: -

  1. It is true that some drugs are more costly in Australia than they are in the United Kingdom. In some few cases drugs are in the order of three times as costly in Australia; but in many other cases the difference is smaller; in fact some drugs are cheaper in Australia than in the United Kingdom.
  2. My department is constantly engaged in negotiations with drug manufacturers regarding prices charged for drugs to be supplied as pharmaceutical benefits and as a result the disparity in prices between the United Kingdom and Australia is being reduced. This action will continue.

Television. (Question No. 30.)

Mr Collard:

d asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notices -

  1. What is the estimated cost of establishing a national television station in the districts of Kalgoorlie andGeraldton, respectively?
  2. What would be the expected annual maintenance cost of each station?
  3. What would be the expected annual cost for each station excluding maintenance?
  4. What would be the expected annual revenue from each station?
Mr Hulme:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. On the basis of 100 K.W. transmitters in each area, operating by micro-wave relay from Perth, the details are as follows: -

Williamstown Rifle Range. (Question No. 35.)

Mr Crean:

n asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. How often are the buildings occupied by rifle clubs at Williamstown rifle range utilized during the year?
  2. What was the total number of (a) civilian persons and (b) service personnel who used the range at Williamstown for shooting during each of the past three years?
Dr Forbes:

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

  1. The rifle club houses are used each Saturday, and the police rifle club house each Thursday. In addition, the buildings are in use for fourteen days annually to accommodate country members during special meetings.
  2. The annual average attendances at the range for the last three years were as follows: -

    1. by civilians - 34,550.
    2. by Service personnel - 16,970.

The range is also used by the Australian Cadet Corps. Whilst the figures for the last three years are not available, cadet attendances at the range for 1963 were 3,246.

Australian Broadcasting Control Board. (Question No. 69.)

Mr Daly:

y asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. What are the (a) names, (b) qualifications and (c) details of the background of members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board?
  2. When was each member of the board appointed, and for what term?
Mr Hulme:

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: -

Full-time Members -

G. Osborne (Chairman), C.B.E., B.A., L.L.B.: Re-appointed chairman for a period of two years from 16th March, 1964. Member of the board since its inception in 1949 and chairman since1952. Formerly Chief Parliamentary Draftsman and Assistant Solicitor-General for Tasmania; first Registrar of the Australian National University. Mr. Osborne has been a member of the Commonwealth Bank and Reserve Bank Boards since 1952.

B. Mair, B.E.E.: Associate Member of the Institution of Engineers, Australia, Fellow of the Institute of Radio Engineers (Australia), and Senior Member of the Institution of Radio Engineers, United States of America.

Re-appointed on 16th March, 1963, until 29th March, 1965. Member of the board since 1951. Formerly Supervising Engineer (Radio), Postmaster-General’s Department, and Director, Technical Services, with the board.

M. Donovan: Appointed for a period of three years from 15th March, 1963. Formerly employed in Radio Branch, PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and as Assistant Secretary (Television), and secretary of the board, since its inception in 1949.

Part-time Members -

Dr. W. C. Radford, M.B.E., M.A., M.Ed., Ph.D.: Fellow of the Australian College of Education. Appointed for a period of three years from 6th November, 1961. Formerly Assistant Director and now Director of Australian Council for Educational Research.

Sir Tasman Heyes, C.B.E.: Appointed on 24th February, 1964, for a period of two years. Formerly Secretary, Department of Immigration.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 March 1964, viewed 22 October 2017, <>.