Senate
13 November 1935

14^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
ILLEGAL BETTING
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION
QUESTION
- YAMPI SOUND IRON ORE DEPOSIT
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE RIOTS
THE LATE MR. MAXWELL, M.P
SANCTIONS BILL 1935
- Third Reading

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1485

PAPERS

The following paperswere pre sented : -

Science and IndustryResearch Act - Ninth Annual Report of the Council for ScientificandIndustrial Research, for the year ended 30th June, 1935.

Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1935, No. 100.

page 1485

ILLEGAL BETTING

Use ofTelephone Facilities.

SenatorFOLL. -Has the attention of the Postmaster-General been directed to a statement, made by the Queensland Home Secretary, Mr. Hanlon, appearing into-day’s newspapers, to the effect that one of the difficulties with which parliaments had to contend in connexion with measures to suppress illegal betting in Queensland was the control exercised by wealthy interests and the use made of the telephone facilities provided by the Post and Telegraph Department? One big organization, carrying on illegal betting throughout the State, he said, had400 betting shops, and a revenue of £20,000, one-half of which went to the Postal Department in payment for telephone services. If so, has the Minister any comment to make?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The suppression of illegal betting is the function, not of the Commonwealth, but of State police departments. Whenever any infringement of a State law is reported, appropriate action is taken by my department in order thatits facilities may not be used improperly by persons proved guilty of such offences. It is impossible for the Postal Department to discharge functions which properly belong to State police departments.

page 1486

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Appointment of General Manager

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that Mr. C. J. A. Moses, who has been appointed general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, has had no experience of broadcasting except in his capacity as sporting commentator, and that he has been in the Commonwealth for only eight years, it is to bo understood that no Australians are eligible or available for the higher executive positions in the Broadcasting Commission?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman has expressed an opinion concerning the qualifications of the person appointed. He knows that questions addressed to Ministers must not contain expressions of opinion.

Senator COLLINGS:

– It is not an expression of opinion; it is a statement of fact.

The PRESIDENT:

– In my view, it is an expression of opinion, and I suggest that the Minister, in his reply, should ignore the reference to the qualifications of the gentleman appointed.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Appointments to the Australian Broadcasting Commission are not made by the Government. Parliament, as the honorable senator knows, delegated that responsibility to the Broadcasting Commission. The only matters over which the PostmasterGeneral has any control are the salaries of the general manager and the holders of other highly-paid executive positions.

Senator Collings:

– Cannot I get an answer to my question as to whether Australiansare available for those positions?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I am not answering that portion of the honorable senator’s question.

page 1486

QUESTION

YAMPI SOUND IRON ORE DEPOSIT

Senator COLLINGS:

– 13 the PostmasterGeneral in a position to state if information has been obtained in answer to my question, addressed to the Leader of the Senate on the 31st October, with regard to the sale to British and

Japanese interests of the iron ore deposit at Koolan Island, Yampi Sound ?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– No reply has yet reached me. I shall have inquiries made, and inform the honorable gentleman as soon as possible.

page 1486

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS

Statutoryrules 1935, No. 104. Senator COLLINGS.- I ask the PostmasterGeneral : What is themeaning of the following words contained in Statutory Rule No. 104 (amendment of the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations) : -

And will not plane any person in a position to control, either directly or indirectly, more than that number of stations in respect of the whole or portion of their activities, including programmes, technical services, commercial arrangements and management.

Do these words mean that a lecture or radio play or other item, cannot be transmitted over all the B class network of a State?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The intention is to prevent a monopoly of broadcasting. It is not intended to affect the broadcasting of chain programmes. I have given the trade an assurance to that effect.

page 1486

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION

Section 92 : Appeal to Privycouncil

Senator COLLINGS:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister. upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to send the Attorney-General (the Honorable R. G. Menzies) to London to represent the Commonwealth before thePrivy Council when the appeal under section92 of the Constitution from the verdict of the High Court is being heard?
Is it a fact that Mr. Menzies has publicly expressed his agreement with the High Court decision to be appealed against?
If so, would it not bosafer to secure other legal representation before the Privy Council ?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The right honorable the Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : - 1, 2 and 3. The question as to the representation of the Commonwealth in the appeal to theP’rivy Council in the dried fruits case will receive consideration if, and when, the

Privy Council grunts leave to appeal from that decision. I understand that the petition for leave to appeal will not be heard for several weeks.

page 1487

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE RIOTS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Has the attention of the Government been drawn toa statement reported to have been made by Mr. Justice Evatt, that the Commonwealth is responsible for the compensation paid by the Western Australian Government to foreign nationals who suffered injury or loss in the racial rioting at Kalgoorlie?
If so, in view of this opinion, will the Government consider the desirability of refunding theamount involved to the Government of Western Australia?
If not, why not?

Senator BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

Yes.
No.
The responsibility for the preservation of law and order is a matter for Stalegovernments and consequently the Govern men t of Western Australia accepted liability for the payment for loss sustained in the case of the civil disturbances at Kalgoorlie.

page 1487

THE LATE MR. MAXWELL, M.P

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I have received from Mrs. Maxwell a letter of thanks for the resolution of sympathy and condolence passed by the Senate onthe occasion of the death of Mr. George Arnot Maxwell, K.C., M.P.

page 1487

SANCTIONS BILL 1935

Debate resumed from the 8thNovember (vide page 1454), on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce -

That the bill he now read a second time.

SenatorBROWN (Queensland) [3.13]. - When, on Friday,I asked for leave to continue my remarks, I was pointing out that, in the event of the imposition of sanctions after the18th November, there was every probability that Germany would continue to sell goods to Italy. I do not know whether the League of Nations, or any government associated with it, has received any guarantee from Herr Hitler that the Government of Germany will not follow such a course.

– That is so. Some day mob psychology may not be so potent a force as it is to-day. Those honorable senators who are interested in mob psychology should read a book on the subject by the French writer Le Bou. The situation in Europe may be likened to an international game of chess: one move, and the whole situation may be changed. The game is being played secretly, and we can follow its progress only by what we read in the newspapers. Members of this Parliament know only what the Government allows them to know. I have no doubt that for some time past messages have passed freely between Italy, France, Great Britain and Australia in relation to the situation in Europe. An interchange of views regarding the European situation is constantly taking place between Germany, France and Britain. These nations arc playing for high stakes, and we are wondering from day to day which side Germany will join. According to the Melbourne Herald of yesterday, efforts are being made by Germany, behind the back of the League of Nations, and in collusion with France and Britain, to bring about a tripartite agreement, apart altogether from sanctions.

– I shall not discuss that matter, but I shall be pleased to give the honorable senator an attentive hearing when he addresses us on the bill.

– I refer the honorable senator to my speech on Friday, when I stated that quite a number of persons in the Labour movement throughout the world agree with the attitude of the Australian Labour party toward sanctions. We have adopted a definite policy on many vital matters, which is not acceptable to Labour organizations in other parts of the world. As a boy [ lived in the Old Country, and I know that the British Labour party was partial to the international outlook. Its members were very friendly to foreigners, regardless of nation or colour, who visited their hospitable shores. They had no conception of the White Australia principle, which they regard as being utterly wrong. In the present circumstances, the British Labour party’s outlook on sanctions is international; but because it considers that the policy of the League of Nations is right, that does not influence the Australian Labour party. In approaching this subject we have given consideration to possible future developments. If Australia is committed to act in accordance with the League’s decision to apply sanctions, a precedent will be established which may react against us when the White Australia principle or some other principle dear to Australia, is discussed by the League. Rightly or wrongly wo believe that the Government has made a mistake in this matter, and we, as a party, are opposed to sanctions. We are not against any procedure which will bring about peace in the world, but we do object to an action taken by a few nations and likely to cause another war in Europe.

In conclusion, I ask honorable senators to give every credit to members of the Labour party, as public men, for speaking sincerely on this matter. We desire to do the best for Australia; we hope that we are right; and we hope that the Commonwealth will not have to suffer any serious consequences as a result of the Government’s mistake. We are as good and loyal Australians as anybody in the community, doing what we think is right in the best interests of Australia. While believing in the defence of this country, we consider that Australia, in view of its situation, would be better advised not to be embroiled in any European controversy, and that it should devote its energies to building up a worthy nation within its own boundaries.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I support this bill for the simple reason that, for good or evil, Australia has been a member of the League of Nations from its inception. If there has been one section of the community that has been almost fanatical in its support of the League, it has been the Labour party. When the League has been dealing with matters of world importance, no organization has been more ready to send delegates overseas to participate in the discussions. When any criticism of the League has been offered by members of Parliament or by public men, the foremost to champion it have been members of the Labour party. Yet on the first occasion that the League finds if necessary to give effect to the Covenant the members of the Australian Labour party are shirking their obligations by declining to support the undertaking which Australia, in common with the other members of the League, has given. On Friday last, when Senator Brown said that he was opposed to the imposition of sanctions, I asked, by interjection, if the honorable senator believed that Australia should withdraw from the League. He declined to answer. I now ask the honorable senator if he believes that Australia should d’odge its obligations by withdrawing from the League?

Senator Brown:

– The honorable senator is now speaking of dodging obligations.

– Then apparently the honorable senator’s argument is this: “While things are going along smoothly and while there is no prospect of trouble we shall continue our membership of the League of Nations, pay our. subscription regularly, send our delegates to the Assembly and to conferences of the International Labour Office, but whenever there is the slightest risk of danger, Australia must take no part in League affairs.

I agree with the statement made by the Assistant Minister (Senator Brennan) on Friday to which exception was taken by honorable senators opposite, that for Australia to shirk its responsibility in connexion with the application of sanctions against Italy would savour of cowardice, in view of the fact that for sixteen years we have sent our delegates to Geneva to discuss with the. representatives of other Member Skates measures to promote world peace.

– They will continue to support the League. The honorable senator is misrepresenting the attitude of the Labour party.

Senator DEIN:

– Why does the Labour party now abandon the policy it has followed for many years ? It would appear that its support of the League in the past has been only lip service. The Covenant of the League is not new, and the Labour party should have known long before the present trouble between Italy and Abyssinia developed, what the Covenant involved. Strangely enough, only recently has the Labour party learned that sanctions may have serious consequences.

Now that the League is on its trial, now that it has reached the cross roads in its history, now that the sincerity of the signatories to its Covenant is put to the test, and now that the worth of its true friends is revealed, this is the time when the Labour party chooses to adopt an attitude which, if generally adopted would mean the destruction of the League. I remind the Opposition that the destruction of the League means the destruction of its subsidiary organizations also.

What the ultimate result of the present crisis will be is a matter for conjecture. The Opposition may be right in its contention that the action taken by the League must inevitably lead to war; but, on the other hand, it may be wrong. We all sincerely hope that the conflict will not extend. Time only can tell. The League came into . existence in order to prevent war. Failing to prevent war, it seeks next to limit and localize the conflict. On this occasion the League did fail to prevent war between Italy and Abyssinia. It is now taking the next step and is attempting to limit the war and bring it to an early conclusion. Although this bill has been introduced to that end, the Opposition has been loud in condemning it on the ground that sanctions must inevitably lead to war.

Senator Collings:

– Sir John Latham is of the same opinion.

Senator DEIN:

– Time only will tell whether Sir John Latham was right. The fact remains that when the League Covenant was prepared it was not thought that sanctions would inevitably lead to war. Had that been the belief at the time provision would have been made in the Covenant for financial, economic and military sanctions to apply simultaneously. The Covenant, however, provides for the gradual application of sanctions. Whether financial and economic sanctions will be effective is, I admit, a matter of conjecture.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The Leader of the Opposition believes in enforcing industrial sanctions.

Senator DEIN:

– Members of the Opposition owe their election to this Parliament to the acceptance of. the principle of sanctions in industrial affairs.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator knows that lie could not enjoy his present security unless the hungry and dispossessed in the community were controlled by trades unions.

Senator DEIN:

– I admire trade unions, and agree with the principle underlying them. But I submit that if sanctions are right in industrial affairs, they are right in international affairs also.

It has been said that the League of Nations did not apply sanctions against Japan when that nation invaded China a few years ago. Everyone admits that on that occasion the League made a mistake.

Senator Collings:

– To whom does the honorable senator refer? If he does not say it here, I am sure he will do so elsewhere.

Senator DEIN:

Dein has placed a wrong construction on a portion of his speech, and since he has apologized to the Senate, I am prepared to accept his apology in that form.

Senator DEIN:

– I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has adopted his present attitude. I did not reflect on him personally, but on the judgment of the Labour party, which’ is prepared to do what, in my opinion, would amount to assisting Italy in its attack on Abyssinia. I agree wholeheartedly with the course of action taken by the League of Nations to hamper the operations of Italy. The bill gives me an opportunity to register my protest against the Italian attitude, and I regret that every section in this chamber does not stand behind the Government and the League by supporting this legislation.

Senator Collings has drawn my attention to a book written by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), from which Senator Brown quoted extensively in regard to sanctions. If he endorses the sentiments expressed by the writer, he will have no alternative but to cast his vote in support of this bill as did the right honorable member referred to. I trust that the regrettable war in Abyssinia will soon be terminated, and that it will be unnecessary for the Government to bring down further legislation on this subject.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Little did we in Western Australia reck about ten years ago when we formed the League of Nations Union there that we should live to hear such an awful verbal exhibition as that to which we have been treated in this Parliament by members of the Labour party. Amongst the most prominent founders of that union, the members of which held varied political beliefs, were gentlemen eminent in the Labour organizations. Now that the first concrete effort made by the League in the interests of peace affects our own nation, we find that the opposition to the application of the sanctions is practically confined to prominent members of the Labour party. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this situation is that the members of the Opposition are only fair-weather friends of this instrument for world peace. The League itself it the only protective barrier which exists at present to reduce the risk of war. The barrier may contain holes and be weak in places, but the fact remains that the League is an active, instrument and the only alternative to resort to the clash of arms. To-day, any action that may possibly weaken the prop, should be avoided. To abandon the League would be to invite trouble, because it is the only means by which friction between the two belligerent nations can be reduced. The nations of the world, with few exceptions, have accepted the fact that Italy is the aggressor, and, if we are not prepared to apply the conditions laid down in tins bill, we must continue our trade relations with Italy. Perhaps the Opposition would like to see the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited works turning out munitions or military accoutrements to be consigned to Italy for use against the poor unfortunate Abyssinians. As Senator Dein has pointed out, if the Labour party votes against this bill, it will declare, in effect, that our present trade relations with Italy .shall continue,, and that we shall supply it with materials for war. I cannot understand the Labour party’s present attitude, because it has applied the expression “sanction” throughout its political activities. People are living in “Western Australia to whom the Labour party applied sanctions in 1917, because of their political beliefs, and a political vendetta continues against them.

Senator Brown:

– Vendetta ?

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.Yes, a vendetta not only against the alleged culprit, but also against his family.

Senator Sampson:

– And these people are the lovers of peace!

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– It is a question, not of peace, but of the application of sanctions or restrictions, and in the case that I have in mind the restriction related to personal liberty. I am glad to note that the Federal Labour party is not expressing the opinion of the great majority of the individuals in the Labour movement. ‘So far as Australia is concerned there is no war, and no declaration of members of the Opposition can convince me that there will be a war between Italy and Australia. In my opinion the Labour party has overlooked the point that if you scratch an

Australian, you will find a Briton. The Parliamentary Labour, party is not interpreting the attitude of the moral courage of me Labour movement generally throughout Australia. Its political representatives are giving a one-sided view of sanctions, and are not speaking for that large concourse of Labour voters who are British to the backbone. The Labour Premier of Western Australia (Mr. Collier) is a believer in the League, and still considers that by the imposition of sanctions Australia can contribute something towards easing the present military situation in Europe. Other prominent Labour men hold similar opinions, and in this regard I propose to quote the family bible of Labour members of Parliament, the Labor Daily. As recently as the 20th and the 22nd August last, that eminent mouthpiece of Labour politics published this sentiment-

Another conflict similar to that of 1914-18 is unthinkable, but the rape of Abyssinia would represent a direct challenge by Italy to the entire system of collective security that must be met by effective application of economic and financial sanctions.

That opinion does not emanate from any so-called “ die-hard- tory ‘’ newspaper.

Senator Arkins:

– Will the honorable senator show the cutting to the Leader of the Opposition?

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.Gladly, but I doubt very much if his opinion can be altered.

Senator Arkins:

– He could not call the honorable senator a liar for making that statement.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

- I hope not, although he may think I am. But the fact remains that the expression is to be found in the Labor Daily, the organ of the Labour party in> New South Wales. Why the Labour party should attempt to overthrow thu solemn Covenant of the League, I cannot, understand. The very hand which signed on behalf of Australia that solemn declaration - the League Covenant - signed another’ solemn declaration, the sugar agreement. The gentleman whom Senator Brown is so fond of mentioning in this debate, the Right Honorable W. M. Hughes, signed both of those instruments, and I suggest that if we can repudiate one, we can repudiate the other. Parham that would not suit honorable senators from Queensland!

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– There will be an attempt to vote out the sugar agreement when it comes before this chamber, although the Government has already signed it.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– On that occasion perhaps Senator Brown will refrain from mentioning the name of Mr. Hughes. Out of the wealth of opinions expressed on this bill one thing stands out prominently in the present situation. I could not better express it than in the language used by the German Government recently when it paid a very high compliment to Britain, for having regained the leadership of the League, which was formerly held by France. I emphasize that this compliment has been paid to Great Britain by a recent enemy, for the work it has done in trying to maintain peace. This occasion should not be allowed to pass without mention being made of the excellent work that the British Minister for League Affairs, Mr. Anthony Eden, has performed at Geneva on behalf of world peace. He has striven for long months to find a way for the nations to compose their differences, and has been a master of patience; to his untiring efforts the people of Australia should pay tribute.

Another aspect which has appealed to me both before and during the discussion on this bill is the need for Australia to be prepared for any debacle such as that contemplated by the Opposition. Should its security be menaced Australia itself will require all the help the world can offer. Unfortunately, during the last few years Australians have not realized the low ebb at which the defences of this country stand. To the Right Honorable W. M. Hughes I would pay the compliment that at least he has done much in the last fortnight by the publication or his now famous book to cause the public to realize the acuteness of the. danger to which Australia is exposed through its lack of defence. I hope that this will be a reminder to the Australian people that it is high time to ensure that the Commonwealth is adequately defended - and defended by ourselves, without leaning too heavily, as we have done in the past, or.

Britain and the British Navy. We have a duty to our people which wemust shoulder, and i trust that, as a result of the discussion on this bill, we shall be a step nearer to the day when we shall be adequately protected. The defence policy of Australia should be revised, starting from the bottom, with the re-introduction of compulsory military training. The discipline and the training under that system were the finest that we have ever had in Australia, and until it is reintroduced, we shall encounter considerable difficulty in building up adequate defences. I commend the bill, becauseI feel sure that it will contribute towards a peaceful settlement of the European situation. It is an honest endeavour to carry out our solemn obligations as a consistent member of the League of Nations from its inception. The League is on trial, and we should do our share to help it in its time of trouble. Unfortunately, the Opposition seems to base its attitude on the two alleged failures of the League, in connexion with the Gran Chaco and Manchukuo wars. The former, as the Leader of the Senate mentioned, was an old and musty family quarrel, and could be ignored. The position in Manchukuo was entirely different because that country is nearer to Australia. Perhaps our friends in opposition would have liked the League to have intervened in that instance, and to have applied all kinds of economic financial and military sanctions to Japan, in which case they would be in a very sorry position to-day. The League may have failed in that it did not interfere in the Manchukuo dispute, but as an Australian I thank God that it did not. 1 commend the bill to honorable senators and express the hope that it may help to calm the European turmoil.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I do not propose to traverse at length the amazing statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) in speaking on this bill, butI must say that I was pained and grieved at the extraordinary doctrines which he enunciated. If I deduce his meaning aright his remarks were pitiable and pathetic. The honorable senator said that because Australia is a sparsely populated country it could not defend itself andshouldbe kept out of these troubles.

Senator Brown:

– I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition said that Australia could not defend itself.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I dispute the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that Australia cannot defend itself. Australia can, and will, defend itself if given an opportunity to do so. Australia is not the small and insignificant nation that the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that it is. In this country to-day we have at least 2,000,000 men of fighting age. To the pathetic and pitiable doctrine that we must in all circumstances keep out of trouble I do not subscribe. When the honorable senator says that Australia should not participate in any European war, I ask him what we would think or say if Great Britain declared that it would not help Australia in the event of an invasion. We stand together or we fall together. During the Great War, Australia was defended in Gallipoli, Belgium, France and Palestine, just as surely as if our trenches had been cut across Commonwealthavenue in Canberra. We can, and will, defend Australia. Universal training is an adequate, necessary and effective means, and what is more it is truly democratic. I. do not subscribe for a moment to the doctrine thatwe are incapable of defending ourselves. Possibly if it came to a fight with tongues some honorable senatorswould be regarded as champions. We have shown that Ave are capable of playing a man’s part. Kipling says that -

No easy hopes or lies

Shall bring us to our goal:

But iron sacrifice

Of body, will and soul.

Thosewho think only of material things, of ample food, comfortable clothing, and ease, should study carefully those lines. The Leader of the Opposition almost made me weep, so fearful was the picture he painted. The inference to be drawn from the honorable senator’s remarkswas that some members of the Government are anxious to send men overseas to be butchered and maimed. He said that men weresent overseas during the Great War. No Australians were sent overseas to serve in that conflict. We were not sent;wewent of our own free will.I trust that I shall be pardoned if I intro duce a personal note. One of my kiddies was born on the day that war was declared. I went overseas when hewas a little chap three months old, and I did not see him again for several years. Do you think I wanted to go ? Politicians, writers, pedants, students and others may argue until the crack of doom as to the cause of the greatwar. I can give the reason why over 300,000 Australians felt it their duty to offer all they had, by putting their poor, frail bodies up against the mighty armies of a great disciplined power lusting forworld domination. Stripped of all camouflage, humbug and make-believe, the reasonwhy wewent was thatwe believed that mightwas not right, and never will be while free men inhabit the earth. That iswhywewent. We realized that if might were greater than right, Australia would not be safe. Wewanted Australia to remain a country inwhich men and women may live their lives according to their lights, so long as in so doing they do not inflict hardship upon others. That is whywe went. It is a false doctrine that we can repudiate our pledged word, act dishonorably, and still retain our selfrespect and the respect of other nations.

Hadwe been living in the good old days, or bad old days, whicheverwe may term them, the conflict between Italy and Abyssiniawould not have produced an international crisis. Abyssinia would have been invaded like many other African countries have been invaded, and there would have been just another colonialwar. Britain and France would have asserted their rights under the Tripartite Treaty of 1906, and Italywould have given the same assurance that it has now given that it would respect those rights. In the olden days this conflictwould not have concerned the world at large, but it does concern it to-day. Why? Because there is a League of Nations. By making the conflict itsown concern the League has made it the vital concern of all of its members. It is the League that has transformed what would have’ been a remote and local affair into a near and general problem. That being so, according to the Leader of the Opposition, we should be better off without the League. Has the League really had a chance? It emerged from the Great War when there seemed to be one supreme necessity - the prevention of another world war. Admittedly the League has met with some failures. It failed to avert or stop war in the Far East and in South America. It failed to avert war between Italy and Abyssinia; but it is now doing its best to prevent it from continuing. In any hostile criticism of the League let us be just. The Far East is a long way off. To have brought pressure to bear upon a great power such as Japan, which has absolute command of its own home waters, would have been exceedingly difficult, and very dangerous, especially to Great Britain, which has so much at stake in the Far East. Many argue that the war in the Far East could, and ought, to have been stopped by the League. I am not saying that those who so argued are wrong. I merely say that the effort would have been difficult and very dangerous. Moreover, we have no means to judge with any degree of certainty whether it would or would not have been possible to coerce the Japanese. The war in South America was fought between two relatively weak States - Paraguay and Bolivia. It was so far off and in a region so inaccessible that again interference by. the League would have been extremely difficult. There is also the Monroe doctrine and it is very doubtful whether the United States of America, or the South American States, would have wished any interference by nations of the Old World. Now there is war much closer at hand between two nations, both of which are members of the League. One is in Europe and, to use a venerable term, belongs to the modern “ concert of European powers “ - a concert which gives the League whatever reality it may possess. We cannot say that on this occasion, it was physically impossible for the League to have prevented war between Italy and Abyssinia. But would not coercive measures be so difficult and so dangerous that Europe might lose more than it would gain? That is a matter on which opinions may differ. Everything that could be done through conciliation and arbitration has been or is being done. Oan the terms, or, rather, the general directions of the Covenant be enforced with full vigour if gentler methods fail? We do not know yet, but we may know before long. Great Britain most certainly does not desire conflict with Italy, although the happenings of a few weeks ago would suggest that Mussolini believed that it did. His threats and boasts about Malta and Gibraltar were really responsible for the strengthening of the British naval forces in the Mediterranean, by the addition of several vessels belonging to the Home fleet.

The League is either a reality or it if not. The Covenant is either a serious treaty, which has to be honoured by those who signed it, or it is an expression of amiable and impotent idealism. The collective system is either an effective instrument for the preservation of peace, or it is an empty formula. When the League was established, it was assumed that the United States of America would be a member of it. I recall very clearly the atmosphere and temper in Paris when the terms of the Peace Treaty were being considered, because I had a job of work to do in Paris just at that time. 1 witnessed the arrival of the German, Austrian and Turkish delegates, and I have a vivid recollection of the picturesque Abyssinian delegates who came to Paris to congratulate the late President Woodrow Wilson on the success of the peace negotiations, and also, no doubt, to do what was possible to prevent their country from being “ gobbled-up “ by some of the victors. I clearly remember that it was taken for granted then that the United States of America would be u member of the proposed League of Nations. That assumption proved to be wrong.

More was expected of the League than was politically possible, though in the circumstances of the times, this was not surprising, because it was forgotten that if, and when, moral suasion failed, there was no provision for the application, by the League, of force to ensure the observance of its covenants. This may be one of the reasons why, in some directions, the League has failed to fulfil its real purpose. We should, however, remember that the League represented an international revolution - one of the greatest in history; that it is, and was, a great experiment, and, like all experiments must develop by trial and error. Only there must be a time limit to its experimental working, or if there is no limit, we must simply face the facts and draw our own conclusions.

If the League goes on shrinking - unfortunately in recent years it has shrunk somewhat - until it fades out of existence, we must not go on pretending that it exists as an effective instrument for the maintenance of international peace. Least of all can we allow it to be distorted into the opposite - something that while never averting trouble, will always drag us into it.

The quarrel between Italy and Abyssinia is a real and severe test in the sense that the far-eastern and South American conflicts we’re not. The British Commonwealth of Nations is resolved to carry out to the full the obligations that are laid down in the Covenant. But it cannot do so alone. Indeed, it is not its business to do so alone, for it is the essence of these obligations that they shall be collective.

I desire now to refer briefly to the attitude of the Australian Labour party to the imposition of sanctions. Labour’s policy appears to me to be one of funk and dishonour. I can place no other interpretation upon what I have read of speeches delivered by Labour leaders, and what I have heard from the mouths of Labour’s representatives in this chamber. Unless as a nation we are to be dishonored, wo must honour our solemn word and respect our obligations. A friend with whom I discussed Labour’s attitude in this crisis suggested an analogy which I think is very apt. He reminded me that in industrial disputes a trade union calls a strike to secure redress of the grievances of its members. In furtherance of its policy it imposes sanctions against the employer. Any member of the union who, because of his circumstances, or because he fears to antagonize his employer, refuses to strike, is branded as a “scab “, and for the remainder of his life “ sanctions “ are imposed against him by his fellow workers. I remind our Labour friends that Australia is a member of a union - the League of Nations - and, as such, it must loyally support its fellow members in the course agreed upon to ensure world peace. Is Australia to become an international “scab”? God forbid! I would sooner see this country invaded and go down a defeated nation than that it should be said of its people, whose virility was tested some twenty years ago, that they have no sense of honour; that their word is not worth a snap of the fingers ; that whenever trouble looms on the international horizon, Australia “ scabs “ on its fellow members of the League of Nations. And not only “ scabs “, but boasts about it because in this debate we have heard opponents of the Government’s policy fighting valiantly with their mouths, suggesting that this country should repudiate its pledges through fear of the result.

The League is above all an instrument of mediation and conciliation. The Covenant does not provide any specific coercive measures except under article 16 which can only be invoked to stop a war that has actually begun. Even when, despite the efforts of the League to avert hostilities, war has broken out, it cannot be seriously argued that the League is a failure. The question to be considered is whether the League can continuously and persistently arbitrate in this conflict. Can it exercise a certain, even if limited, control over its members and more especially over Italy and Abyssinia? Can it exert influence, or even a pressure, that will induce or compel them to negotiate an early peace? And when negotiations have begun, can the League determine or help to determine the nature of the peace so that the terms may not be too vindictive or impossible? To these questions we have as yet no answer, but the answer which coming events will give will make it possible for the powers and for us to judge, for the first time since the League was established, whether it is a reasonably useful instrument for the maintenance of international peace. I wish that this Parliament had unanimously and wholeheartedly approved the bill, because I, for one, cannot see how we can, without loss of face, without suffering dishonour, refuse ‘to support sanctions against Italy.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

. -We have been listening to some heroics from Senator Sampson, of whose sincerity no member of this chamber entertains any doubt. I do not begrudge the honorable gentleman the opportunity which this debate has afforded him to say what is in his mind, because he has been a soldier, and, I believe that every man who. irrespective of his nationality, offers his life to his country, should be honoured. But there is always the other side to an argument, and it will be my purpose to support my colleagues in the Labour party in stating the case for our side. I wish particularly to refer to the attitude of our opponents who are not represented in this debate - the armament rings. the economic concessionaires, and the whole weight of colonial enterprises which the capitalist nations have around their necks. Many different opinions have been expressed on the point’ as to whether sanctions will lead to war. The Labour party, as its main argument against sanctions, holds that they mean war, and that view is supported by such men as Sir Austen Chamberlain, Sir John Latham, the former Minister for Health and Repatriation (Mr. Hughes), Sir Stafford Cripps and Mr. George Lansbury.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Sir Stafford Cripps advocated the imposition of sanctions against Japan.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– He has not advocated them in this instance. I recall that at the commencement of the Great War, the late Mr. Andrew Fisher, whose name is revered in the Labour movement, offered Australia’s help to Britain “ to the last man and the last shilling “.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– What did he do in 1917?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– In that year, Mr. Fisher was not here to carry out his promise. However, this country did not in fact offer Britain the lam shilling in that conflict and a great deal of the cost of it was passed on to the shoulders of the workers. Largely because of our participation in the Great War, we have to-day 300,000 people unemployed, and our small population of less than 7,000,000 is carrying a debt as large as that which Great Britain had incurred at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. There is a progressive aspect in matters of this nature. No doubt Mr. Fisher was sincere in his offer to Great Britain, but it was not fulfilled because when the war developed, we had to consider our own position in relation not only to the British Empire but also to the rest of the world. At that time the issue of conscription, which had never before been raised in this country, arose. Because they opposed conscription many people were called cowards and traitors. .1. myself, for instance, was called a Sinn Feiner, a pro-German and an Industrial Worker of the World supporter, although before that time, I had spent only about a fortnight in America. As the result of carrying out my duty, as editor of a newspaper, in allowing the free expression of public opinion on this issue, I was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment without the option. That newspaper was the official organ of the Labour Government in Queensland, and its chairman of directors was the Home Secretary, who, was in charge of prisons. My sentence was suspended but had I been clapped into gaol on that occasion, I would have become, as a prisoner, the guest of my chairman of directors. However, when the issue of conscription was put to the people, a majority of 30,000 in Queensland voted against it. Yet for daring to voice opinions against conscription as I have indicated, anti-conscriptionists, like myself, were sentenced to imprisonment by the Commonwealth authorities. The verdict of the people on that occasion, showed that not only the stay-at-homes - the “ deep-thinkers “ - the Sinn Feiners, the pro-Germans and the Industrial Workers of the World supporters were against conscription, but also the majority of the soldiers who were serving in the trenches at that time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I am pointing out that an unpopular cause subjects its supporters to misrepresentaton and harsh treatment. Sanctions are a very difficult problem. After studying it, I sum up my opinion- by saying that I do not want to see Australia involved in another war of such vast dimensions as the previous war; I do not think we could stand it. We did more than our share in the last war, although some people say to-day that we did not do even our share in that conflict. After all, a nation’s participation in a war is a matter of proportion. We say that the United States did not do its fair share in the last war. Considering its huge population and its financial resources, I do not think it did.

Senator Hardy:

– Why does the honorable senator say that sanctions must lead to war?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– There onn be no doubt on that point. It Lj like keeping the peace. Suppose that a policeman seeing two fellows fighting in the street, approached them and said, “ I have not met you’ before, but this is an unfortunate thing you are doing; it is ungentlemanly. Don’t you think you ought to read the New Testament on the doctrine of love of your fellow ma.:!, and learn from that that you should nor. fight in a street?” How far would he get with such a remonstrance? A policeman who had to keep the peace under such conditions would probably require the backing of sanctions. He would probably have to say to the offenders, “ If you do not desist from fighting, I will see that the butcher or the milkman does not call at your home in the morning “. He would threaten to cut off their supplies of the necessaries of life. Of course, a policeman doing his duty in such circumstances would be threatened with reprisals. Undoubtedly, a similar position will arise internationally if sanctions are imposed. The former Minister for Health and Repatriation (Mi-. Hughes) who was the hero of the last war, holds this view, and quite a number of people, including a majority of the members of the Labour party, agree with him. Recently I read a report of a speech in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) said that peace could be maintained, and that Australia does not want war. On the other hand, Mr. Hughes maintains that sanctions mean war.

Senator Dein:

– Mr. Hughes does not know all about it.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Many people who have a right to form a judgment on the matter have come to the con clusion that sanctions mean war, and 1 agree with that view. The Labour party is as sincere in its view of this matter as it was in respect of the conscription issue It does not want to see Australia involved in another war, and hopes, by preaching the doctrine of nonparticipation, to keep this country out of war. 1 agree with that view. I believe that by opposing sanctions we are adopting the right attitude.

Senator HARDY (New South Wales) [5.56 1 . - I was not. present in this chamber when this debate was commenced on Friday, but, having carefully read the speeches made then by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) and Senator Brown. I feel I am sufficiently informed regarding their arguments to attempt to reply to them. A number of honorable senators have asked whether the Labour party really adheres to the principles of the League of Nations, or whether its professed adherence to the League is merely lip-service, to which it is committed in an endeavour to uphold a useful political ideal. One suspects the motives of that party in this matter. I have examined the various items of the Labour party’s platform as amended at the federal conference in 1933, and I failed to find any mention of the League of Nations. A defence policy was mentioned at that conference, but no mention was made at that conference or in the platform of the party of the League of of Nations: nor was there any suggestion that the Labour party supported the League.

Senator Collings:

– Would the honorable senator embody such a matter in an Australian political party’s platform?

Senator HARDY:

– Yes; I think it is essential that such a matter should be mentioned in the platform of a political party.

Senator Collings:

– Is it mentioned in the platform of the Country party?

Senator HARDY:

– Yes; not only do we support the ideals of the League of of Nations, but, unlike the Labour party, we ave prepared to observe the obligations placed upon us by the Covenant of the League. When speaking on the Appropriation Bill 1934-35, Senator Collings, replying to a question by Senator

Grant as to whether Australia’s expenditure on the League of Nations was advisable, said -

I hope that nothing Senator Granthas said will influence honorable senators to favour a reduction of the provision for Australia as a member of the League.

I hoard Senator Collings express a similar view to-day. If he is prepared to support Australia’s membership of the League, is it not logical to expect him and his colleagues to honour the obligations placed upon Australia through such membership ?

Senator Collings:

– Apparently, we must have another war to save the League !

Senator HARDY:

– In the first debate in this chamber on the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, Senator Collings read a statement of the policy of the Australian Labour party on that matter. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) said that he doubted that the Leader of the Opposition thoroughly understood the implication of the Covenant. Senator Collings did not say then that he thoroughly understood its implications. But let us see what the honorable senator said in December, 1934, when speaking on the Appropriation Bill 1934-35, as recorded in Mansard, page 1063-

It is true that the League has not been able to accomplish many of the objectives embraced in its constitution, and it is also true that the League on some occasions has failed. But it is much more important for us to remember, not its failures, but its successes.

Less than twelve months ago the honorable senator advocated concentration on the successes of the League, yet almost the whole of the honorable senator’s speech last week was devoted to the failures of the League. In support of Senator Collings’ tale of failures, other Opposition senators criticized the League for its inaction in connexion with the dispute between Japan and China. In December of last year Senator Collings saw fit to reprimand Senator Grant in the following terms: -

I suggest to Senator Grant, and to other honorable senators who agree with his views, that they should make themselves fully acquainted with the constitution of the League of Nations, the work it has attempted to do, and what it is actually accomplishing, not only in Geneva, but throughout the world.

Despite those words of praise for the League, the Leader of the Opposition now refuses to support it in its greatest test. Compare the honorable senator’s words on that occasion with his latest utterance on this subject -

The Australian Labour party is opposed to sanctions because it is opposed to war. The Labour party saw more clearly and more immediately than any other party that sanctions mean war.

I propose now to quote from an editorial in the Labor Daily, which is the official organ of the Labour party in Australia.

Senator Collings:

– That is not so.

Senator HARDY:

– I am pleased to hear that, for I desired to be assured that there was still some difference of opinion between the Federal Labour party and the New South Wales Labour party. On the 22nd August, 1935, the Labor Daily, in an editorial, said -

Articles 10 and 16 of the League Covenant are the two fundamental articles of the whole Covenant upon which the entire system of collective security is bused. If they are jettisoned international anarchy must result.

Early in September Mr. Lang held an anti-war meeting in Sydney, and this was the occasion for a complete change of policy. As he thought that it would be bad policy to be in alliance with any other political party on any question, the Labor Daily turned a complete somersault, and said that in future sanctions would be opposed because they meant war. In an another part of the same article the following appeared : -

Another similar conflict to that of 1914-18 is unthinkable, butthe rape of Abyssinia would represent a direct challenge by Italy to the entire system of collective security that must be met by effective application of economic and financial sanctions.

I hope that, when the Leader of the Opposition a.gain speaks on this subject, he will attempt to reconcile that statement with his more recent claim that the Australian Labour party saw the issue more clearly and more immediately than any other political party in Australia saw it. The attitude of the Labor Daily, if generally accepted, would mean the ushering in of international anarchy. Last week Senator Collings said -

What is the cry to-day. Save the League of Nations in the interests of collective security.

Asa rallying cry this is one of the cleverest, subtlest and most specious that has ever been raised in the cause of war.

How different is that from the view expressed about twelve months ago, when the honorable senator took Senator Grant to task ! Indeed, how different from the view expressed by the Labor Daily only six weeks ago!

Senator Brown said that there was a considerable body of opinion in the British Labour party opposed to sanctions. For the information of the honorable senator, and of the Senate generally, [ shall read the following extract from the Economist of the 5th October, 1935:-

Labour decides. - The overwhelming vote in favour of sanctions at the Labour Conference on Wednesday demonstrated how very largely personal is the much-advertised “ split “ in the party. A majority of 2,168,000 to 102,000 or over 20 to 1, was recorded in support of the League Covenant. Dr. Hugh Dalton, who proposed the resolution embodying the official party policy, made a clear, crushing and unanswerable case.

Sanctions, he said, do not necessarily mean war. On the other hand the scrapping of sanctions as a reserve force behind international law certainly means war - war soon and in a far more terrible form than even a war between Italy and Abyssinia. A threat of sanctions may be enough to prevent war . . . But if Mussolini is so lunatic as to resist the united League of Nations by force, let it be so. He will order the firing of the first shot, and ho will take the consequences of that order.

That this was the opinion of the vast majority of the delegates, was proved by the final vote. Before the vote was taken, however, there was a long and dramatic debate in which, the picturesque personalities of the minority spokesmen did something to conceal the numerical weakness of their supporters. Sir Stafford Cripps, most of whose adherents appeared to be in the public gallery, argued thathehad changed his mind about the League because he had only recently come to the conclusion that it was a League of sated imperialist powers - an “ international burglars’ union.” Yet the only significant change in its character, coincident with Sir Stafford’s conversion, has been the adherence of Russia! Lord Ponsonby laid great stress on the League’s lack of universality, compared with the original intentions of its founders. Mr. Lansburyspoke the language of unqualified Christian pacifism: “They who take the sword shall perish with the sword.” The delegates were sympathetic, but not persuaded. In reply Mr. Bevin tellingly remarked that those who did not approve of sanctions should have openly declared their opposition to the League years before.

Every honorable senator who claims to understand the Covenant of the League of Nations should have opposed sanctions years ago if hebelievedthat they meant war. Why it is that the Labour party has waited until now to voice its opposition to the Covenant? The reason is that there is a world of difference between the Australian Labour party and the British Labour party. What are the sanctions for which the Covenant of the League provides? First, the Covenant provides that the aggressor nation shall be prevented from getting arms. Does the Leader of the Opposition object to that? If so, it means that he is prepared to assist Italy to obtain arms. This bill is an attempt by Australia, in common with over 50 other nations, to prevent a covenant-breaking State - in this case Italy - from obtaining arms.

Senator Collings:

– Italy will still get all the arms it wants; British armamant makers will supply them.

Senator HARDY:

– The point at the moment is not the willingness of British armament makers to supply arms to Italy, but the willingness of the honorable senator to assist Italy to obtain them. The second object of sanctions is the prevention of a covenant-breaking State from getting essential raw materials. In my opinion, there is no essential difference between supplying a machine gun and supplying the lead out of which bullets for machine guns may be made. Is Senator Collings in favour of supplying a covenant-breaking State with raw materials for the making of ammunition?

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m..

Senator HARDY:

– I have said that it is hard to concede that the attitude of Labour is logical in view of the fact that the party has taken sixteen years to discover that it is not prepared to subscribe to the principle of sanctions, although in the present circumstances their application is clearly required under article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Senate has now to decide whether it will support the bill before it, which provides for the application of sanctions against Italy. I believe that I am correct in saying that the Leader of the Opposition, in replying to the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) said that he will fight the bill at every stage, because he considers that sanctions mean war. But every honorable senator who has spoken in opposition to the measure, when pressed for a reason for that assertion, has been unable to justify it. The attitude of the opponents of the bill is entirely illogical.

As I have already indicated., the first object of the application of ‘sanctions is to prevent a covenant-breaking State from obtaining arms. That is one of the purposes of this legislation. We contend that a nation which has deliberately broken the Covenant of the League, to which it has subscribed, and has set out on a policy which threatens to bring western civilization to its knees, by embroiling the world in a turmoil similar to that experienced in the years 3914-1S, should be regarded as an enemy of peace. If sanctions mean war, I would rather impose them than permit a belligerent nation like Italy to be supplied with arms to carry ou its cruel attack upon Abyssinia. If the Leader of the. Government said that it had been decided to allow the small arms factory at Lithgow to export its surplus arms to Italy, on the ground that this would provide work for Australians, would not the Leader of the Opposition claim that it would be wrong to employ trade unionists in the manufacture of arms that were to be sent overseas? The Labour party cannot consistently claim that it supports the League of Nations if it opposes the imposition of sanctions on a belligerent nation which breaks the Covenant of the League. What, would be the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the employment of members of the Australian Workers Union on the large grazing properties distributed throughout the Commonwealth, if this Parliament did not. prohibit the export to Italy of wool, which is required to clothe the Italian troops now engaged in harassing Abyssinia?

– The statement continues -

These depend on Italy’s capacity to pay - cash or deferred. Its cash resources are expressed in its gold and its foreign credits. These, a month ago, totalled probably less than £90,000,000 in sterling equivalent.

Nor can Italy view its credit standing as AI.

Italy’s budget deficits must read disquietingly to Italian financiers and economists in the light of the wide expenditure to which the Government was committed the moment its troops crossed the Abyssinian border on the 2nd October. The deficits read - For 1930-31. £11,317,000; 1931-32, £65,967,000; 1932-33, £60,367,000; 1933-34, £107,633,000 (all in sterling equivalent). That position would not inspire confidence in the money markets in normal circumstances. Its appeal to a financial world determined onpeace may be imagined.

Those figures represent the internal economy of a country which is prosecuting a war in Abyssinia, and which, according to the Australian Labour party, might if sanctions are imposed, conduct a war against 51 nations. The statement proceeds -

Since August, the chief avenues of credit have been closed to Italy. Thus, from this angle, and from the angle of its inability to pay cash beyond a certain point, economic sanctions merely frame an already painted picture.

The United States of America Governmentcontrolled Export-Import Bank has refused to grant short-term credit.

When the Labour party opposes the bill, it should take that point into consideration. Upon analysis, it will be understood that the impositions of sanctions cannot, in any circumstances, give rise to a world-wide war. Turning again to the statement I find that -

On the 18th September, £2,060,834 was outstanding to British creditors under the AngloItalian trade agreement. (A million was mentioned as owing to coal exporters alone).

Dues to the Suez Canal Company for war traffic have been stated at £600,000 to the end of September.

The review concludes with a statement that the money and commodity markets of the world will be closed to Italy. Is it any wonder that, as a result of the internal difficulties of Italy herself, this journal says that “ economic sanctions merely frame an already painted picture “ ? -

And all expenditure figures expand rapidly once hostilities are commenced.

The money markets and the commodity marts of the world will be closed to Italy. And, more than that, war necessities result in internal production being diverted into abnormal channels, thereby throwing normal production out of gear, and increasing the demand on imports.

A further review shows how sanctions are being applied, not through the desire of governments, but through the commercial sense of the countries involved.

I have taken the following extract from the Economist, of September: -

Will Signer Mussolini’s ‘“forward” foreign policy be hold back by economic difficulties? Many people are asking that question; and certainly a number of reports in the last few days indicate that the Duce’s preparations in East Africa have given the economic screw in Italy a severe twist. First, the bank rate in Italy was raised last Monday from 3½ to 4½ per cent. This follows a drop in the gold reserve from 5,523 million lire to 5,257 million lire in the last ten days of July. Thus, despite the strict control of Italian citizens’ and firms’ foreign securities and assets, gold is flowing out; and this emphasizes the reason for the recent decree abandoning the statutory requirement of 40 per cent. gold cover against notes and sight liabilities.

Senator Collings will realize that the most powerful instrument of the belligerent nations in the last war was the gold reserve. The payment by Germany of gold in certain Pacific ports enabled the Emden to carry on its raiding. Ifa country goes to war, although its internal credit may be sound at the time, it must have gold to purchase its requirements in markets abroad.

Senator Collings:

– The gold reserve of the Commonwealth is not very large. We had better be careful.

Senator HARDY:

– But Australia is not going to war. Mussolini has ordered the mobilization of all foreign credits and fluids belonging to Italian citizens -

Secondly, the need for transport of goods andmen in East Africa has led to the withdrawal of many Italian ships from the Black Sea route, and to the crowding of tramps and transports through the Suez Canal. Many foreign ships, chiefly Greek, are under charter for this purpose: and it is reported from Germany that thirteen vessels, with a total tonnage of 120.000 have been purchased by Italy from foreign countries, while negotiations are continuing for further ships.

Thirdly, Italy has been trying hard to’ buy cotton-

If there is one commodity that a belligerent nation must have above all others - Senator Brand will readily endorse this - it is cotton for big gun ammunition - but she has met with a rebuff-

Not from Great Britain or any other member of the League, but- in the United States, where the Governmentowned Export-Import Bank has declined to grant short-term credits to American exporters of United States cotton to Italy despite the huge American stocks of a commodity which is one of the “ sinews of war “.

Although the United States is not imposing sanctions, the very internal economy of Italy is imposing a sanctions programme on nations outside the League.

Senator Collings:

– Then we need not worry.

Senator HARDY:

– For a gentleman who does not worry, the honorable senator looks particularly upset at present. I venture to say that the easiest way out of his difficulty would be for him to vote for the bill. The Economist continued - fourthly, it is reported that Italy already owes South Wales and Durham exporters over £1,500,090 for coal; that the sum of £1,770,792 was still outstanding on 7th August under the Anglo-Italian trade agreement and awaiting transfer to British exporters, and that in view of her indebtedness to British coal exporters, Italy has chartered seven Greek ships to transport new Italian purchases of Polish coal to Italy.Italy’s industries, more than those of any otherEuropean great power, ourselves included, depend on imported raw materials.

The greatest asset we have in our sanctions programme is the internal and economic position of Italy. This extract is taken from Fascism at Work, by El win -

The national debt amounted to about. 95,000,000,000 lire in 1922-23. The expenditure for unproductive needs, such as military police, colonies, &c., induced budget deficits of 3,000,000,000 and even more. In the ten years of Fascist rule, the internal debt has risen from 95,000,000,000 to at least 135,000.000,000 lire, in round figures, over 10,000,000,000 lire of new debts per day.

– The honorable senator has spoken against the application of sanctions, and they include a prohibition of the export of arms. Two nations are responsible for 50 per cent. of the total export of arms. The complete table, which may interest honorable senators, is as follows: -

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) may say that that does not prove my case, but I venture to suggest that if he were asked to give a definite vote as to whether we should supply Italy with arms to conduct war against Abyssinia his reply would be in the negative. Well, then, I ask him to support the bill.

I now come to the subject of credits, which, as I have already pointed out, are extremely important for they are necessary for the prosecution of war. Although a modern army may have a constant supply of arms and munitions to prosecute a campaign, as Senator Brand and Senator Sampson know, it needs about ten men in the supply organization to keep one man in the field. To obtain these supplies gold is necessary. The. surest way in which to limit a nation’s ability to buy in the world’s markets is to restrict its credits. There is no moral difference between sending 1,000,000 rifles from Australia for use by the Italian army and sending £1,000,000. Both are used in conducting military operations and consequently come under sanctions. There are two classes of credits. There are credits owned by a country before the commencement of hostilities, and those secured by it after the outbreak of hostilities. Let us examine the credits in existence at the outbreak of war. They include foreign currency within the country; foreign securities within the country ; commercial balances and instruments abroad; and branch houses, real property, abroad. Before the commencement of hostilities, a nation must attempt to marshal its credits Mussolini has already acted on these lines. After the commencement of hostilities it is an entirely different matter, because it can then extend its credits only on interest and dividends on securities held - provided there were no sanctions; commercial balances from exports - provided that there are exports; borrowings by commercial houses - provided there are no sanctions preventing borrowing; credits or loans secured by the government - provided there are no sanctions; credits or loans secured by municipalities or credits transferred from a third country. When honorable senators analyse the provisions of the bill and the credit machinery they will find that the only source of credit available to Italy, apart from its internal gold reserve, is that available in the United States of America, Germany and Japan. If we analyse Italian loans since 1921 to the present day we find that all of these three countries, particularly the United States of America, are creditor countries which, in commercial terras, means that there is no balance to be transferred. Therefore, Italy cannot obtain credits abroad and the only credit available is its rapidly diminishing gold supply. Over 51 nations are co-operating in a campaign to prevent Mussolini from bringing western civilization to its feet. If the position which I have outlined does not impress the members of the Australian Labour party I do not know what will. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Australian Labour party is opposing this bill because it does not wish to work in cooperation with any other political party however great the national emergency may be.

The only other point I wish to stress is the fact that the major portion of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition - I did not hear it, but I read it carefullyagainst the application of sanctions was an attempt to ridicule the Government because Italy is securing petrol supplies from the United States of America. I have heard members of the Labour party in this chamber say that sanctions cannot be effective because petrol, which is used extensively by a mechanized army, is flowing freely out of the United States of America into Italy. The Leader of the Opposition said -

Deny Italy petrol and immediately its capacity to attack Abyssinia and prosecute the present conflict would be prejudiced.

Does the honorable senator realize the significance of those words? He has admitted that sanctions can be effective in stopping war.

Senator Collings:

That weighty utterance was not an isolated pronouncement. Almost immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, announced that it was a war aim of the British people to establish, at its close, a league of peace. During all the dark years of the war that splendid ideal was not lost sight of by British Ministers, and the political leaders of that other great branch of the Anglo-Saxon race, the United States of America. The ultimate outcome was the establishment of the League of Nations, which was designed to promote peace and prevent aggression by any individual power. The principles of the constitution of the League were, I think, in accordance with our desires. We accepted its articles without opposition, and by signing the Covenant we assumed our share of its obligations without protest from any political party in Australia. At that time it seemed that “ the war to end war “ had really attained its objective.

Now a situation has arisen in which Australia is, without a doubt, being jailed upon to play its part in accordance with its solemn undertaking. We cannot disregard the summons because the peace of older nations, as well as our own future, is at stake. Since collective security means protection for Australia against hostile acts, if by an adverse vote now we sabotage the League, who can say what dire fate may be ours later?

I must confess that I cannot understand the attitude of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party upon this issue, unless it be its wont, despite its many good works, occasionally to back the wrong horse. I am satisfied that the people of Australia endorse every action taken by the League, and that by firmness on the part of this Government in support of Great Britain and the League, the danger of war - not a very grave danger at the moment, I think - will be averted, and more and wider avenues opened for future exploitation of the possibilities of universal peace. Since 1914 no country has been confronted with a graver problem than that with which we now have to deal. I have no doubt as to the decision of this chamber. I whole-heartedly support the bill.

Senator ARKINS:
New South Wales

– In the course of my remarks upon this important subject, it will be my purpose to break new ground, if that be possible after the lengthy debate that has already taken place. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) has not denied that the League of Nations was established for the purpose of preventing future wars from destroying civilization. On the contrary, he has, I understand, on many occasions upheld the ideals of the League.

The League of Nations came into being when the Treaty of Peace with Germany was ratified on the 10th January, 1920. Its charter, containing 26 articles, is known as the Covenant which includes a number of provisions for the prevention and settlement of disputes. These clauses bind natio’ns which are members of the League not to employ force for the settlement of the disputes until they have first been submitted to the League of Nations, or to arbitrators or to judges. The right to resort to war was retained in the event of the League or the arbitrators failing to reach a unanimous decision, but even then only after a delay of three months after such failure. This right to war was abandoned by the 60 States which signed the Kellogg Pact. Thus for the first time in history machinery was devised for the establishment of an international tribunal with a set purpose to prevent war, which is regarded as the greatest scourge of mankind.

Apparently the ideal of the League is too high for certain members of the socalled Labour party of Australia.

Senator Brown:

– What “so-called” Labour party?

Senator ARKINS:

– Because Labour’s spokesmen in this chamber do not represent the virile rank and file of the workers of Australia. The preamble to the Covenant of the League of Nations reads as follows : -

The High Contracting Parties -

In order to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security - by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments, and, by the maintenance of justice and the scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another,

Agree to this Covenant of the League of nations.

If Labour senators believe in the League of Nations, if they believe in its ideals they must endorse its Covenant, which states specifically that “there shall be scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations.” No one will deny that Italy has violated one article of the solemn treaty made between the nations represented at Geneva. By that Treaty of Paris the signatory nations pledged themselves to the Covenant of the League, and the moral rules governing its members. On the 1st November, a cable message, which appeared in the Australian press, reported Mr. F. B. Kellogg, a former American Secretary of State, as having said in an interview at St. Pauls, Minnesota, in reference to the Kellogg-Briand Pact-

The United States of America in common with other countries can and should designate Italy as the aggressor in flagrant violation of the sovereignty of another nation. The United States of America should denounce Italy’s violation of her treaty obligations and announce that it will take no step to interfere or nullify the measures which other nations are now taking to put a stop to this war What some American peopleseem to have forgotten, and what the Italian people or their Government seemed to have entirely ignored is that when Italy invaded Abyssinia, she was thus, beyond a. shadow of a doubt, proceeding to use war as an instrument of national policy. Italy has violated a treaty with the United States of America, and thus violated the supreme law of our land.

I emphasize that the United States of America really stands outside the League. Nevertheless, so prominent a spokesman for that country, one who played a foremost part in the formulation of the League Covenant, has said that Italy in breaking the League Covenant has violated treaty obligations with the United States of America. Mr. Kellogg emphasized -

Italy has violateda treaty with the United States of America and thus violated the supreme law of our land.

When the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues say that they believe in the

League of Nations, surely they accept a fundamental principle of the League, that members must scrupulously observe all their treaty obligations. The Leaderof the Opposition must have been aware of that fact when he said a year ago that he believed in the League. He was then practically a protagonist of the League, and on one occasion he corrected honorable senators who suggested that the League was not all that it should be. In view of his previous statements surely he believes that when Italy has broken a treaty Australia should support other nations in upholding the treaty. Labour parties in Great Britain, France, and practically throughout the world have supported the League in the present conflict, because they recognize that if the League is to be worth anything at all its members must stand up to their treaty obligations. It is futile to talk platitudes about the League. The peace of the world will not be secured by words. Mr. Kellogg has stated definitely that in its non-observance of the League Italy has violated treaty obligations with the United States of America. Honorable senators who support this measure hold the view that Italy has also violated treaty obligations with Australia. Referring again to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and to the attitude of the United States of America, Mr. Kellogg said -

I hope that those considering trading with Italy will have it brought home to them constantly that in supplying oil. cotton or machinery they are aiding and abetting a nation that treats a solemn treaty as a scrap of paper.

In opposing the imposition of sanctions, members of the Opposition really suggest that Australia should break faith with the rest of the world. In following such a course we would probably not only cause confusion among the other nations which constitute the League, but would also support the opening of the door immediately for all sorts of open trading in oil, armaments, munitions, and all requirements of war. Thus we would add fuel to the flames and do the very thing which Australia as a member of the League has undertaken to prevent.

Senator Brown:

– If Germany supplied oil to Italy, would the honorable senator suggest that Australia should go to war with Germany?

Senator ARKINS:

– I do not suggest anything of the sort. I cannot understand how members of the Opposition at one moment uphold the League and profess their belief in all the League stands for, and then after the lapse of a few months crawl, as one honorable senator put it, into their funk-holes. If honorable senators believe in the League, they must believe in upholding treaties. Signatories to the Covenant of the League have undertaken to ‘ promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security - by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another.

The undertaking to maintain scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations is a vital principle of the Covenant and has been stressed as such over and over again. I propose now to deal with the League’s Code, which contains the broad rules governing the conduct of League members : -

The Peace of Nations. - Any war or threat of war, anywhere is recognized to be a matter of concern of tlie whole League.
Renunciation of War. - Members may “in no case” resort to war until they have at least tried peaceful procedure and have then waited a further three months. In certain conditions, the obligation not to resort to war is unqualified.
Peaceful Procedure and Settlement. - livery dispute “ likely to lead to a rupture “ must be submitted to peaceful procedure, either to a decision by the permanent court or SITe 1,11 arbitrators, or to inquiry and report by the Council. Certain kinds of dispute arc recognized as “ generally suitable for legal decision “.
Peaceful Change and the status quo. - The territorial integrity and political independence of members are to bc respected and preserved against aggression, and tlie Assembly may advise “ the reconsideration of treaties which have become inapplicable “ and “ the consideration of international conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of tlie world “.
Collective Security. - Provision is made for collective action to coerce any State resorting to war in breach of its obligations. The contribution by all other members of the League to economic and financial pressure is obligatory; the contribution of naval and military force is a matter for recommendation by the Council, but it is assumed that members will co-operate loyally and effectively within the limits allowed by their armaments anil geographical position. These sanctions are not for the purpose of imposing the League’* decision but for preventing, and in the last resort stopping, breaches of the covenanted peace as quickly and with as little injury as possible.

– It may be that the Opposition has been led astray by men like Sir John Latham, Mr. W. M. Hughes and Professor Charteris.

Senator PAYNE:

– Sanations can lead to war only if the nation against which they- are directed commits an act of war. Notwithstanding its strength, Italy would hesitate before engaging in war against the nations which have agreed to impose financial and economic sanctions against it. The most extraordinary thing about the meeting which I attended in Melbourne was that it was called with the object of protesting against fascism. The other item on the agenda paper was anti-war - a lovely mixture indeed ! Anything to catch the public ear and delude the people ! On the one hand Italy is denounced because it has a form of government which we in Australia would never tolerate and on the other hand, the Australian Government is denounced for bringing forward a measure to terminate the present war by imposing sanctions on Italy.

The international position to-day is serious. I am much in accord with a speaker who addressed himself to the Abyssinian dispute recently, and said that, in his opinion, the magnificent gesture of Great Britain towards disarmament, though made with the best of intentions, probably accounts for the Italian aggression against Abyssinia. He contended that if Great Britain, instead of spending millions of pounds on the payment of the dole to its youth, had used the money to train the youths in defence of the British Empire, and to maintain: her armaments for defence purposes, Italy would never have dared to undertake hostilities in East Africa. That may be correct ; but we realize that Britain, despite its handicaps, has taken a risk in order to give a lead to the world in disarmament. Its attitude has evoked the admiration of the world. If Australians do not stand behind Great Britain in its magnificent effort, we shall no longer be Britons; we shall be recreant to the trust imposed in us and shall never bo able to lift our heads again among the nations that are honouring the Covenant. We must not desert Great Britain and other countries associated with her in their hour of need. No more important legislation than this has been brought before this Parliament for many years. This measure marks a critical stage in our history, and demands either that we stand firm in our intention to honour the undertaking we gave when we signed the ‘Covenant of the League of Nations and maintain the loyalty which we owe to the Commonwealth of Nations which form the British Empire, or play the part of a renegade. We may follow one of two courses. I know the part that we shall play, however; the bill will be passed.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Then why all these tears?

Senator PAYNE:

– I made that statement in the hope that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues may repent. This matter is far too important to be made a party question. From my knowledge of the Australian people I .am confident that they will support the Government. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the enforcement of sanctions by the nations which have agreed to them will bring about the speedy termination of hostilities in Abyssinia. If that eventuates, I predict that the League of Nations will become the force in the world that we hoped it would be when it was inaugurated, to preserve world peace for all time.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– On behalf of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) I thank honorable senators for the high plane on which the measure has been discussed. No measure more far-reaching or more important has ever come before the Senate. It affects not only the interests of Australia but, as I shall indicate, the interests of suffering civilization itself. It is proper that a matter of such moment should be discussed on the highest possible plane, and not made the subject of party attack, because the future of civilization depends upon tho attitude that is adopted by the constituent members of the League. Hie measure is fraught with such tremendous responsibilities that we should deal with it earnestly and in no carping partisan spirit. Any shaft that may come from me in the course of my speech, although perhaps aimed at some of the honorable gentlemen opposite, will be directed by a sincere desire to convert them from their present attitude to a realization of their responsibility and their duty to humanity. When debating a measure of this description, we should take stock of where the peoples of the world stand - why are we hero, what are we doing, and what is our duty to posterity? Surely we arc trustees for posterity, and have a responsibility for the future advancement of mankind. Because of this, a suffering civilization has brought into being the League of Nations. The foundation of the League was the first concerted attempt of civilized man to rescue itself from the horrors of war. Whatever failures it may have had in the past, and despite the lack of support from certain powers, the League has been a force for good. I remind honorable senators that though Germany and Russia were not original members, and the United States of America’ has never joined, the League has rendered considerable service to the world. It has eliminated the sufferings of many nations, and repeatedly preserved peace between nations that were on the very verge of war. Under these circumstances, a grave responsibility rests upon those in our midst who state that we should not support the League. Members of the Opposition have avoided the issue which briefly is this: Are we to retire from the League of Nations or carry out our obligations to it to the full? There is no middle course. We have either to accept our obligations or -leave the League. 1 am sure that Senator Collings would be the last to declare that we should retire from the League. Does the Labour party stand for the desertion of the League? The only alternative is to support the League to the full. One cannot give part service to the League; we must either accept the Covenant as a whole with its disabilities, disadvantages and dangers, if we are to strive in the interests of suffering civilization and humanity - for that is the League’s objective - or withdraw from it. Every law, both human and divine, stands for the observance of covenants, and I think that it is nowhere better expressed than in the Koran : “ Oh ye faithful keep your covenants”. That is all that the League and the British Empire are asking. This Parliament is asked in its small way to implement one small part of our covenants. Our good faith, honesty of purpose and self-interest go hand in hand on this occasion. A few days ago, I said in this chamber that Australia, by reason of its isolated position in the southern seas, has much to gain from loyal adherence to the League.

As regards the position in Europe, I speak with some degree of feeling, because T was a signatory on behalf of Australia to the Kellogg Pact. France, one of the nations represented at that ceremony, has had personal experience of war, and ir, has suffered more bloodshed on its own fields, than probably any other nation in Europe. Within a period of 50 years, France has endured two invasions, and has had its soil drenched with the blood of its own sons, the invaders, and those who went to its rescue. I never knew an assembly in which fervour reached such a point as on the occasion of Mr. Kellogg’s visit to France. The document, variously called the Pact of Paris, and the Briand-Kellogg Pact, evoked in the French people feverish enthusiasm for what they believed to be an implementation of the work of the League of Nations - an accession of strength to the League, fathered and fostered by the American people. As I have mentioned, the French knew the horrors pf war and experienced its disabilities and disadvantages. Their fields had been trampled by the rude foot of the invader for centuries past, and the French impressed upon me at the time their tremendous enthusiasm, almost a religious fervour, for the Kellogg Pact which outlawed war as a weapon among civilized people. The ceremony of signing the pact left an indelible impression on my mind. We in this country know nothing of the horrors of war close to our shores. Our country has been free, thank God, from even a civil disturbance involving any great shedding of blood. It has never felt the foot of the invader. The unfortunate people of Europe who know what war means, its disabilities and its consequences, desire only lasting peace. In these circumstances, regardless of party considerations, we should support this instrument of peace devised by man for his own protection and security, and give it an opportunity to succeed. We have no quarrel with Italy, a country to which modern civilization owes a great deal. Although the League may have some complaints concerning the conditions prevailing in Abyssinia, we have no quarrel with that country. Whatever may be the’ merits of the dispute, Italy and Abyssinia as members of the League are bound by the Covenant, and should have adhered to it. Abyssinia was willing to allow the dispute to be settled by the proper tribunal constituted by the League. and Italy having declined, must submit to whatever may be the consequences of the action it has decided to take. Some observations have been made concerning the far-reaching effects of article 16 of the Covenant. Whatever tho Covenant may provide concerning the existence of “ a state of war “ between certain signatories to the Covenant, the League, in certain resolutions with which honorable senators are familiar, has interpreted those words. These resolutions were passed because the principle of peace is fundamental to the existence of the League. The League which was constituted to ensure the territorial integrity of all nations, and especially the weaker ones, and the existence of a state of war is contrary to the fundamental principles upon which the League is founded. In pursuance of the League’s interpretation of article 16, the Member States are now acting together to bring about a stoppage of the carnage at present proceeding in Northern Africa. Some have said that the League has failed. Has the League actually failed? Has it ever previously been really tested? If time permitted, I could draw a clear distinction between the situation which existed in Manchukuo and that which prevails in Abyssinia to-day. I could refer honorable senators to the Lytton report which declared that there was some justification for a general cleaning up of the position in Northern China, but, I feel that Japan was wrong in adopting the methods it did. There may be something to be said in extenuation of Italy’s policy towards Abyssinia, but countries which have subscribed to the Covenant of the League, are bound by its principles and procedure. The League failed to settle the Manchukuo dispute, but that does not mean that it will fail to solve the problem now before it. The League which was established in the interests of peace has the support of the French Government, and its representatives at the League Council expressed in no uncertain terms the loyalty of Franc? towards the Covenant. M. Laval said -

We are bound to a solidarity which will determineour duty. Our obligations are inscribed in the Covenant. France will not fail to discharge them.

We are now asking that Australia, which is a member of the League and a signatory to the Kellogg Pact, shall discharge its obligations to the League. The United States of America has declared that it is not averse from the present proceedings, and Germany, which is not adopting an attitude of indifference, is opposed to Italian aggression. Soviet Russia, which is now a member of the League, is loyally discharging the international obligations it has assumed. Surely, in our loyalty to the Covenant, we shall not lag behind Britain, France, or the Soviet Republic! M. Laval, in stating the position which he considers the members of the League should occupy, says -

This partnership in responsibilities of all kinds in all circumstances of time and place, a responsibility which is implied for the future by such a declaration, marks a date in the history of the League of Nations. I rejoice thereat with my country, for my country fully understands the need for close collaboration with the United Kingdom in the defence of peace and for the protection of Europe.

The attitude adopted by the members of the League has been well expressed in various sections of the Australian press. One paragraph reads -

It will now remain to be seen whether Britain and France will call Mussolini’s bluff.

It is unthinkable to me that the great Australian Labour party has lost its soul,, and will fail in its duty by declining to honour Australia’s obligations.

Senator Collings:

– It is a “great party “ when the honorable senator wants to put something over it.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I am surprised that, in discussing such an important subject, the Leader of the Opposition should suggest that an attempt is being made to “put something over “ the party to which he belongs.I am sorry that that party does not possess the spirit it once possessed, and that, for party reasons, it is unable to honour the obligations to which it previously committed itself. Is that the spirit and the atmosphere in which this subject should be discussed? It is not in a spirit of anger or bitterness towards Italy that sanctions are being imposed, but in a desire to serve the best interests of civilization.

Some misapprehension appears to exist in the minds of many persons concerning the meaning and use of the word “ sanctions “. Ordinarily, “ sanction “ means approval, but in League circles the word has a different meaning. It is doubtful whether British law owes much to the Roman law, but the French, Italian, Dutch. and some other systems of jurisprudence are closely associated with it. Those who have been in South Africa recall that, in the Dutch legal system, there is a fair sprinkling of Roman law.

Senator Sampson:

– They call it the Roman-Dutch law.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– That is so. Roman law, which has exerted a wide influence on France and other Continental countries, has also influenced the language inwhich the terms of the Covenant have been expressed. This is not surprising if regard be had to the fact that French is one of the official languages in use at the League. At the Council meetings of the League, French and English are the principal languages spoken. The existing legal system has therefore found expression in various articles of the Covenant, and the term “ sanctions “ is commonly used to express punishments or deterrents. Sir John Salmond, who was a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, explains the term “ sanctions “ in his book on Jurisprudence in. this way -

The instrument of coercion by which any system of imperative law is enforced is called a “ sanction,” and any rule so enforced is said to be sanctioned.

He goes on to say that the term “ sanction “ is derived from Roman law. The Sanctis was originally that part of a statute which established a penalty or made other provisions for its enforcement. By an easy transition the term “ sanction “ has come to denote the penalty itself and has been used in international law for many years.

Honorable senators generally have given the bill their blessing. Australia must either honour its obligations under the League Covenant or resign its membership of the League of Nations. I cannot follow the logic of honorable senators opposite. They say - “We do not believe in the participation by Australia in the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. We decline to carry out our obligations under the Covenant. We shall not vote to impose sanctions on the Italian people. We want to keep out”. I put it to them that such a position would be absolutely inconsistent with our continued membership of the League. Senator Collings has told us that Labour’s policy is the adequate defence of Australia. What would be the attitude of the Labour party if Australia were menaced by a foreign nation? If we cannot be trusted to support the League in a dispute between other member States, would Labour expect the League to take adequate measures to defend Australia if this country were threatened ? On behalf of my leader, who unfortunately is absent this evening, I thank honorable members for their assurances of support for the bill.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 3

Majority 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmaive.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I wish to announce at this stage, on behalf of the Opposition, that we do not intend to obstruct the passage of the bill in committee. We know that whatever we may say we cannot prevent its passage, and that any attempt to delay it may result in reprisals on a future occasion. I can, however, assure Ministers that we shall oppose the third reading of the bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

A person, firm or company shall not, directly or indirectly, except under licence (the proof whereof shall lie upon him or it) -

Amendment (by Senator A. J. McLachlan) agreed to -

That after the word “ not “ the words “ during the continuance of this act “ be inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Aiding and abetting).

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– I should like the Minister to explain the position of the Italian Consul and state whether the rights of the diplomatic service willconflict with the provisions of the measure.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The position of the Italian Consul will not be affected.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 -

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this act, prescribing alt matters which are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which arc necessary or convenient to be proscribed, for carrying out or giving effect to this act, and in particular for prescribing penalties not exceeding a line of One hundred pounds or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months for any offence against the regulations.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. - I move -

That after the word “for” (second occurring) the following words be inserted: -

providing for the establishment of a clearing office for the receipt, custody and payment, in such manner as is specified in the regulations, of moneys due by persons in Australia or its Territories to persons in Italy, in such -cases or classes of cases as are so specified;

requiring, in such cases or classes of cases as are specified in the regulations, persons in Australia or its Territories owing moneys to persons in Italy to pay those moneys to the account of a clearing office established in accordance with this Act;

providing for the prohibition or avoidance of contracts for the assignment of debts due by persons in Australia of its Territories to persons in Italy and

”

The object of the amendment is tolerably clear. There is no doubt that, when this legislation conies into force, many debts will be dueby persons in Australia to persons in Italy in respect of various business transactions, and it is only right that the debtors shouldbe required to discharge their obligations. It is proposed to establish, as was done during the Great War, a clearing house, to enable that to be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments ; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator A. J. McLach lan) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– It can scarcely be imagined that I, as Leader of the Opposition, would allow this opportunity to pass without making some attempt to express very strong disapproval of the tactics adopted by some honorable senators in the course of this debate. I pay tribute to those who, in debating the measure, were at least not guilty of slander and misrepresentation of the views of myself and the party I represent. I do not object to honorable senators drawing their own deductions from what I said, but I strongly resent attempts - which I believe were deliberate - to put into my mouth words which I did not use. I can say truthfully that I am not thin-skinned, and that in this or any other debate I have not offered opposition merely for the sake of opposition. Yet this afternoon I was subjected to insult after insult, both personal and political. I do not object to such attacks, but I take this opportunity of saying that I know why they were made.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I rise to a point of order. Is an honorable senator entitled to say that he has been subjected to insults when you, Mr. President, acting as custodian of the good behaviour of honorable senators, have presided during this debate?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I cannot see that a point of order arises. I had noticed that the honorable senator had said that he had been subjected to insults. That was a reflection on the Chair which I was prepared to allow to pass in the belief that the honorable senator was smarting under a sense of defeat. I assure him, howover, that he got as much protection from the Chair as he was entitled to. I remind him also that he constantly interrupted other honorable senators. The honorable senator cannot live in a glass house and throw stones, without having stones thrown at him in retaliation. On the whole, the debate on the second reading was, as was said by the PostmasterGeneral, conducted on a high plane, and during the course of it every honorable senator was reasonably protected by the Chair.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I hope, Mr. President, that any remarks which I have made will not be taken as a reflection on yourself or on your conduct in the chair. This afternoon you were most magnanimous towards me and for that I pay tribute to you now. I realize that you could have been more severe towards me. However, that does not alter the fact that I was fully justified in what I said and I emphasize that I would repeat my offence to-morrow under similar provocation. The honorable senator who raised the point of order was one of those to whom I referred. At one stage he asked, by interjection : “ Does not the party to which the Leader of the Opposition belongs, impose sanctions on the boss?” I hope that I shall be corrected if on any occasion I should say by interjection anything which is untrue or in which I may have drawn wrong deduction from the remarks of any honorable senator. The interjection to which I have just referred sounds fairly innocent to a man who has not been educated in the’ policy and procedure of the working class.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I remained silent on the subject of compulsory training until I, with others, was able to get that policy altered.

The whole of this sitting has been occupied in railing against the Opposition. One of the penalties of greatness is that the Leader of the Opposition has to hop over first and be the target for the shot and shell. But right down the years I have thrived on criticism. However, I realize that regardless of what we say the servile majority supporting the Government will enable this measure to be passed. Nevertheless this Government cannot silence the three men who constitute the Opposition. Although hour after hour is spent in attempts to show us where we are wrong and in distorting passages from our speeches, we shall not be prevented from making ourselves as effective in opposition as possible.Without the Opposition, this chamber would be worthless as a legislative body. I remind the PostmasterGeneral and honorable senators who have figured in the denunciation of the Labour party that we are His Majesty’s Opposition, and without us in this chamber the procedure of constitutional government becomes a farce. Let ii be remembered that no bill can become law in this Parliament until we have expressed our views on it, if we so desire. These somewhat disjointed remarks come from the bottom of my heart. I regret that I have been unable to persuade a majority of the Senate to oppose the bill, because I firmly believe that the ultimate result of its passage will be not to stop the conflict between Italy and Abyssinia, hut to embroil Australiain another world conflict.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I congratulate Senator Hardy upon the able manner in which he marshalled his so-called facts; but 1 was surprised that the honorable senator should accuse the Labour party of being in favour of the export of arms to Italy. The Labour party has always been opposed to the private manufacture and export of arms, and consequently cannot be accused of favouring their export.

At the conclusion of his speech Senator Hardy said that if Australia did not support sanctions it would mean the further development of a policy of selfsufficiency or economic nationalism. In passing this measure we are forcing Italy and perhaps other countries to become even more self-contained than at present.

Every war and every rumour of war has the effect of developing economic nationalism in order to reduce the risk of defeat. It has also been said that we have opposed this measure for party purposes, and the next moment we. are told that there are few people behind us. How can the two statements be reconciled? In order to clarify the position perhaps I should say that the members of the Labour party have no sympathy with Italy or its dictator. Mussolini. Any one who has read of the Fascist development in Italy must realize that the members of the Labour party have no love for Mussolini.

Senator Collings:

– He has gaoled and shot those who support our policy.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes, he has been responsible for leaders of the trade union movement being tied behind motor cars and dragged through the streets of Italy until the poor devils died. We knowhow they have been persecuted and illtreated. How can it be said that we have any regard for Italy and its leader? On the other hand we have no love for Abyssinia. Only to-night the Parliamentary Librarian showed me a book published by the League of Nations picturing the horrors being perpetrated in that country. No one can peruse that book without feelings of horror at the way in which certain Abyssinian people are treated. We have definitely decided to take a certain line of action because we feel that in supporting the League of Nations in this dispute we may be embroiling Australia in another war. Only a few days ago I read the following comments by Mr. Walter Duranty, one of the world’s most prominent international journalists. He said -

The development of the Italo-Abyssinian affair has concentrated Europe’s thought more than ever on the future, and in the opinion of European capitals has hastened the day when the world will be plunged into a conflict more terrible than anything in history.

That is the opinion, not of the members of the Labour party in this chamber, but of a man in close contact with international affairs. He continued -

This shadow of coming war looms black and threatening across all Europe which is cowering and trembling in the darkness for fear of the wrath to come. The majority of the League powers have little faith in the League, but fearing the coming war they clutch at the League as a drowningman cluches at a straw . . . Armament factories all over Europe arc working full blast obviously for war giving prosperity to shareholders and employees . . . The fact is thatEurope is preparing for war and neither statesmen nor theman in the street believe it is avertible.

When we say that thereis every possibility of war, we are accused of suffering from hysteria; but there is no justification for that criticism when prominent men in Europe Bend such messages to Australia. Honorable senators opposite are now silent. In the past members of the Labour party have supported the appropriation of money to defray the expenses of the League. We shall do that again, simply because we believe that it. is endeavouring to ensure peace. We do not however believe that it can prevent all wars, or that we must support it in every action which it takes. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) said -

The adoption of the principles of the Covenant tied the hands of the powers. Individual action was prohibited. Eur years the peace-loving nations of the world have been moving in a world of unrealities. Because they were sincerely desirous of upholding the principled upon which the League of Nations rested, they refrained from taking action to check the ambitions designs of those nations which landed the League with their tongues in their cheeks. The League of Nations established to ensure the territorial integrityof all nations - especially the weaker ones - has not only failed to protect them, but has created conditions that encourage aggression.

The views I have just expressed are not those of a member of the Labour party, but of a gentleman who until it few days ago was a member of the Government. Itis easy for honorable senators opposite to play upon the emotions of the people by speaking of the good old Mother Country and the boys of the bulldog breed. Honorable senators in opposition who have similar feelings contend that thepeople should know exactly what is happening, and should they decide to support sanctions we shall have nothing further to say. The course we are following is to ensure peace and to safeguard Australian development in such a way that there will be no need for war.

– Recently the Workers Weekly stated -

Should the demand for collective application of sanctions fail, and an imperialist war ensue, the conflict of Italian and British imperialism, the mass movement against war, and Fascism must be brought into action to change the imperial war into a war for the overthrow of capitalism.

Senator Arkins:

– Russia is supporting the League of Nations.

Senator BROWN:

– The Soviet Government is supporting this Government against Italy. The Postmaster-General (Senator A. J. McLachlan) this evening noted, with obvious pleasure, the fact that the Soviet has come into line. But although Russia is now supporting the League and this Government against Italy, its system of government is anathema to the imperialist nations within the League of Nations. It is anathema to Germany, and also to Italy.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the motion for the third reading of the bill.

Senator BROWN:

– I presume that, measures or regulations, similar to the provisions contained in this bill will be carried by France, Great Britain, and possibly, also by Soviet Russia, thus indicating a community of interest between these three great powers; but the effectiveness of sanctions about to be imposed against Italy is likely to be impaired by the antagonism between the system of government operating in Russia and the systems in Great Britain and France.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– We who sit in Opposition have endeavoured to make it plain that we object to the application of sanctions against Italy because of the probable consequences to the people of this country, and I take this occasion to say to the Assistant Minister (Senator Brennan) that our attitude is summed up in the Latin phrase Bella! Horrida bella! We do not wish this country to be embroiled again in war overseas. It is apparent that a good deal of explanation is called for in regard to sanctions. There has been much splitting of hairs over it on the part of the Government. The former Minister for Health and Repatriation (Mr. Hughes) has said that sanctions mean war. In voting for sanctions when he believes that they will lead to war, he acted inconsistently. Yet members of this party are asked to follow Mr. Hughes; we prefer to be logical. After referring to the explanation by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) of the confusion among members of the Government in respect of this matter, the Sydney Morning Herald stated -

There remains, as always, the possibility that the covenant-breaking State may, eschewing subtlety and taking to realism, electto make the imposition of sanctions a casus *belli* against a selected league member or members. That, of course, is the risk that has been admitted, though hesitatingly,by Ministers.

That is what the Labour party is endeavouring to prove. In the same journal appears a quotation from an article by Professor Roberts in this week’s Sydney Mail -

Once the economic screw (at Geneva) starts turning, it must bo twisted tighter and tighter unless collective action is to die of inanition or scorn.

– I know that nothing that I may say will influence the Government. Even the eloquence of a Demosthenes, or the reasoning powers of an Einstein, would not cause it to turn aside from the course it is determined to pursue. The Labour party is justified in opposing this bill, and I am convinced that, if the question of participation in war were submitted to the people at a referendum there would be an overwhelming majority against participation. Instead of preserving peace, the action of the Government will tend to bring about

Avar. During this debate, honorable senators supporting the Government have repeated the parrot cry: “Smash the Leagueand what is the alternative?” They claim that world opinion is behind the League because 50 nations are opposed to Italy. But if France, Britain and Russia were taken from that number, the League would bo practically without strength. When the conflict is over, the world will again revert to the old system of maintaining a balance of power by grouping and alliances. War between Italy and Abyssinia could have been prevented hadthe League said to Italy when trouble first arose: “You must not send a soldier to Abyssinia because you must not attack another member of the League.” Right throughout the negotiations, France has been seeking to evade its responsibilities.. Soviet Russia is at present ranged with France and Britain in support of the League; but what would the position of the League be if Russia withdrew from the war, as it did from the Great War?

I agree that Australia should co-operate withthe rest of the Empire as far as it can; but, even if Great Britain did not exist, Australia would not be left unprotected, because it could make friendly alliances with other nations. Some honorable senators supporting the Government would make it appear that, because the Opposition is small, it has a weak case. That is not so. The Australian Labour party has advanced good reasons why this ‘bill should not be passed, and future events will show that it has adopted the right attitude. As I have said, its stand on this issuehas the support of the majority of the people of Australia.

Question - That the bill bo now read a third time - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. j. Lynch.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 3

Majority 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 11.57 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 November 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1935/19351113_senate_14_148/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate13 November 1935

PAPERS

ILLEGAL BETTING

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

Senator COLLINGS:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Collings:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

YAMPI SOUND IRON ORE DEPOSIT

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE RIOTS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BRENNAN:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

THE LATE MR. MAXWELL, M.P

SANCTIONS BILL 1935

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch

Senator BROWN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Hardy:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Hardy:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Hardy:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Dein:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Arkins:

Senator BROWN:

Senator McLeay:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Hardy:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Arkins:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Arkins:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Payne:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Payne:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Payne:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Brennan:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Abbott:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Hardy:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Dein:

Senator BROWN:

Senator Arkins:

Senator BROWN:

Senator FOLL:Queensland

Senator Brown:

Senator FOLL:

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FOLL:

Senator Brown:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Arkins:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Brown:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Brown:

Senate
13 November 1935

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:
Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania