Senate
28 April 1955

21st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 21st Parliament
  3. 1955

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. Iff. McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 71

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the alarming statement of the Prime Minister regarding the probabilities of war, can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence tell the Senate what preparations are being made for the home defence of the people of Australia. Has any action been taken, in conjunction’ with the States, to protect our people in the event of an attack?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honorable senator may rest assured that the Government is fully conscious of its responsibilities .in this matter, and that adequate action is being taken.

page 72

QUESTION

IMPORTS

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I understand that, until recently, applications for import licences were dealt with by a board stationed in Sydney,’ but that an altered policy is now in operation. Is it a fact that applications for increased import licences, and other matters associated with imports, are in future to be dealt with at the head offices of the department in the capital cities of the several States? Will the Minister explain the present situation?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– From the time that import restrictions were imposed, in March, 1952, until the end of March, 1955, applications for import licences were channelled through the a central import licensing branch, which is a section of the Customs House, situated at William-street, Sydney. In accordance with the Government’s - policy of decentralisation, and in order that applications for import licences may be dealt with by people with local knowledge, the Government has decided that, from the 1st April, 1955, applications for increased quotas, or special quotas, but not administrative items, will be dealt with by small committees situated in the State capitals. In each instance, the committee will probably consist of a collector of customs, or a senior officer of the department, who will be assisted by, perhaps, two advisers. Generally, a committee will consist of three members. The new arrangement will ensure that applications will be dealt with by men with more intimate knowledge than is possible when applications from other States and, in particular, applications from distant States, are dealt with by officers in Sydney. The aim was decentralization, and we hope the change will also expedite consideration of applications.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– In view of the Government’s’ decision to restrict imports in an effort to overcome our adverse trade balance, is there any likelihood that export licences will be granted more freely f

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I do not quite understand the purport of the honorable senator’s remarks. The Government is doing its best to encourage our export trade. There are certain commodities, exports of which must be limited for strategic and economic reasons, but generally speaking, we encourage exports wherever possible, and I am sure the honorable senator is aware of that.

Senator COOKE:

– I thank the Minister for Trade and Customs for the information that he gave me in reply to my question regarding the establishment of customs committees in various States. I now request the Minister to be kind enough to submit to the Senate particulars of the personnel of the committees, the powers delegated to them and any right of appeal that may be open to an applicant to a State committee who thinks that his best interests have not been served by a. decision of the committee. I have no complaint to make in connexion with this matter. I seek this information only because it is required by many persons in Western Australia who have not operated under this system.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It would be very difficult to supply details requested by the honorable senator because, in the final result, the administration of the Department of Trade and Customs lies with the Minister who is personally responsible. In the scheme of things, delegation of powers is essential. Power is delegated to the Comptroller-General and is re-delegated to the collectors. Thi; authority that is delegated to the com,mittee to which I referred is very, broad. The authority which previously was exercised by the Central Import. Licensing Branch within the policy of the Government has now been transferred to these committees. The specific powers of the committees are not clearly set out. The committees are merely advised of the policy of the Government and told to administer within the limits of that policy. The committees have no formal statutory authority. They do not operate according to any specific book of rules. But there is a right of appeal from their decisions to the Comptroller-General, and from the Comptroller-General to the Minister.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the committee that has been set up at Fremantle toconsider applications for increased import quotas and special import licences has been delegated any authority to take into consideration the rapid increase of population and the industrial expansion that has taken place in Western Australia during the past four or. five years. That expansion is far in advance of that which has occurred in any other State. Is the committee obliged to fix its quotas by relating them only to the position that existed prior to March, 1952, when the relative industrial positions of the States were very different from those which exist at the present time?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The discretion of the committees is quite a wide one, within the framework of Government policy. I recently passed through Perth and Fremantle and I was very pleased to find that the local collector, Mr. Griffin, is very much alive to the development of Western Australia. In view of the development and progress of Western Australia since the present Australian Government has been in office, the customs staff in that State has been considerably increased. As a result of my discussions with Mr. Griffin, I am quite sure that the interests of Western Australia will be well safeguarded in the hands of such a man.

page 73

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

– On the 21st March, at the eighteenth annual meeting of Capel Court Investment Company (Australia) Limited, held in Melbourne, the chairman of directors, Mr. Staniforth Ricketson, of J. B. Were and Son Proprietary Limited, said, in a survey of economic conditions -

Since the war, ever-growing inflationary influences have come to be accepted as a recognized feature of the economic scene.

I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether acceptance of those inflationary influences is the policy of the Government at present.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I sympathize with the honorable senator in the way his investments -appear to be fluctuating. He refers frequently to financial news and reports of various companies. Unfortunately, my interests are not so extensive as his appear to be. However,, I assure him that, as he is probably aware, this Government inherited shocking inflation which, by wise administration, it has succeeded in stemming.

page 73

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Yesterday, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior whether he could inform me when the rentals for war service land settlement blocks at Tumby Bay in South Australia were likely to be fixed permanently. At present the rentals are tentative. Is the Minister yet in a position to give me that information?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The following answer has been given to me by the Minister for the Interior -

Final data on which final rentals at Tumby Bay will be determined is now being completed, and it is expected that they will be considered within the current year. The settlers are paying either an interim or tentative rental* so that no large claims are likely to be made for retrospective rent. If final results are defined on a lower rental, the amount paid in excess is held to the credit of subsequent payments. This occurred in the adjacent settlement at Wanilla.

Whilst the interests of the settlers are not in any jeopardy, the desirability of reaching finality is realized., and this stage should soon be reached.

page 73

QUESTION

TEA

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the abnormally high price of tea to consumers, will the Minister for Trade and Customs consider the advisability of instituting a subsidy system in connexion with retailers, so that the pensioners, at least, may obtain this national commodity at an economic price?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I think the honorable senator is aware that, for some years, the Australian Government has been subsidizing tea to the extent of many millions of pounds a year. Last year, the subsidy was in the vicinity of £5,000,000. As far as I am aware, the Government does not contemplate reducing the subsidy on tea.

Later:

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– I do not know whether the Minister tried to convey the impression that I do not appreciate the fact that the Government is paying a substantial subsidy in relation to tea. The import of my question was whether the Government would consider devising a means of paying a further subsidy to retailers, in order to reduce the present price of tea to pensioners, in particular.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I appreciate the purpose of the honorable senator’s question, hut I think that, after a moment’s reflection, he will agree that the policing of such an arrangement would be quite impracticable.

page 74

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Further to the question that I directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General on the 20th April, in relation to the complete abandonment, from the studios of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Perth, of live programmes, including sessions of the Children’s Kindergarten of the Air, which the Minister- promised to discuss with his colleague, will he inform me whether a decision has yet been reached in this matter? I understand that the sessions are due to be abandoned some time this week, which is arousing considerable resentment not only among the artists who will be displaced from their jobs, but also among the children, many of whom have been circulating petitions in their districts. I point out that their interest cannot possibly be maintained by recorded programmes broadcast from the eastern States.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I appreciate the interest that the honorable senator is taking in this very important matter. I have not yet received definite word from the Postmaster-General but I shall endeavour, during the suspension of the sitting for lunch to-day, to obtain a definite reply for her.

page 74

QUESTION

TRACTORS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 20th April, Senator Armstrong asked the following question: -

Will the Minister for Trade and Customs kindly inform the Senate why duty is now imposed on wheel-tractors of 40 belt horsepower and over from countries other than the United Kingdom? lt is understood that wheel-tractors of this class arc not available for export from the United Kingdom. If this is so, it appears wrong to impose duty on these tractors, which are almost exclusively used in primary industry.

I now furnish the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

As the honorable senator is no doubt aware, tractors of the type to which he refers are free of duty when qualifying for admission under the British preferential tariff. When not so qualifying they are subject to a duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem provided they are not for incorporation in road rollers. The margin of preference thus accorded to the United Kingdom is in accordance with the terms of the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement 1932 - commonly referred to as the Ottawa agreement - and may only be waived when it can be established that such goods are not available from United Kingdom manufacturers.

While it is true that wheel-type tractors having a maximum drawbar horse-power rating in excess of 40 horse-power were admitted free of duty for u period this concession was made only because the United . Kingdom authorities had agreed that during the period in question these tractors were not available from the United Kingdom.

However, there appears to be some doubt that the tractors available from the United Kingdom are iri fact comparable with certain types imported from other sources and the matter is at present the subject of further negotiations with the United Kingdom authorities.

page 74

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

Senator TANGNEY:

– Arising from the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs concerning the growth and development of Western Australia, I ask him whether any contribution is to be made by this Government to the Government of Western Australia for the establishment of a medical school at the University of Western Australia.. Originally, in 1947, the Treasurer of the day promised a. donation to the Western Australian Government for this purpose, but. that undertaking was later dishonoured. Now that a definite move has been made by the State Government to establish this school, and as the project is a little beyond the financial resources of Western Australia at the present time, despite its growth and development, will the Commonwealth assist by honouring the promise previously made?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not aware of the terms and conditions of the promise which is alleged to have been made, but I shall take the word of the honorable senator that such a promise was made. I remind her that no government has done more for “Western Australia than has the Menzies Government, nor has any government done more for university education than has the Menzies Government. I do not ask the honorable senator to take my word for that. If she has time, I suggest that she read the budget papers over the years since this Government has been in power. If she does that, I think that as an honest senator she will feel full of gratitude to this Government for what it has done for higher education.

page 75

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator PEARSON:

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport will remember that, from time to time, representations have been made to him regarding the possibility of making direct shipments of timber from Western Australia to Spencer Gulf ports, particularly Port Lincoln. I think, also, that further representations have been made to the Minister regarding an additional direct shipment. Can he say whether he has been able to arrange for such a shipment in the near future?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I am pleased to be able to inform the honorable senator that I have received advice from the Australian Shipping Board to the effect that Binburra will load timber in Western Australia in the last week in May for Port Lincoln and Port Augusta, and I would urge that the . people interested place sufficient orders to fill the ship. The chief buyers will be the South Australian Government, which will require sleepers, the Australian Government, and the local merchants at Port Lincoln. The ship Binburra will load in Perth during the last week in May.

page 75

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the State Government’ nf Western Australia issues through its Education Department bursaries valued at varying amounts, one in particular being valued at £80, for the purpose of retaining children at school for higher education ?

    1. ls it a fact that the father of a child winning one of these scholarships is liable for income tax on the amount involved, thusnearly defeating the object for which these bursaries are granted?
    2. If so, will the Treasurer inquire into this injustice with a view to removing this tax?
Senator SPOONER:

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

  1. It is understood that all State governments grant bursaries, under various conditions and for various amounts, for the purpose mentioned.

  2. Such bursaries are expressly exempt from income tax in the hands of the recipient. Where, however, a bursary is received by » child over sixteen years of age, the concessional deduction of £78 conditionally allowable to the parent is reduced by the value of the bursary. In the case of a child under sixteen yearsthe concessional deduction is reduced by £2 fo* every £1 by which the value of the bursary exceeds £52.

    1. Bursaries are clearly in the nature et income and the question of principle raised in the honorable senator’s question is whether a parent who, by virtue of the receipt of * bursary by his dependent child, is spared some of the expenditure involved in maintenance and education should receive the same concessional allowance for income tax purposes as a parent whose child receives no such assistance. The matter raised by the honorable senator will receive consideration when the question of the concessional allowances for dependants ie next under review.

page 75

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

What were the total amounts of Commonwealth Government expenditure, in each State, on developmental works during each of the past four years?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

For certain items of Commonwealth expenditure on developmental works, no break-up as between States is available. However, the expenditure totals given below include the following items which comprise by far the major proportion of total Commonwealth expenditure on civil developmental works in the States (defence works and works primarily of defence significance are excluded): - Works Department, Post Office, Civil Aviation, War Service Homes, Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, Commonwealth Aid Roads, Tuberculosis Act - Reimbursement to States, Encouragement nf Mont Production, Western Australian Waterworks.

Commonwealth expenditure on these items in each State was as follows: - On a *per capita,* basis, Commonwealth expenditure on these items' in each State was - These figures do not purport to indicate the benefit derived by each State from Commonwealth developmental expenditures. For example, expenditure may be incurred in one State in respect of equipment and supplies used for a works project in another. Furthermore, a project located in one State may benefit other States. {: .page-start } page 76 {:#debate-11} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-11-0} #### NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME Formal Motion fob Adjournment. The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin).** - I have received from **Senator Ashley** an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing, a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely - >The anomalies* irregularities and injustices imposed upon the taxpayers of this country by the Menzies-Fadden Government national health scheme. {: #subdebate-11-0-s0 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales .- I move- >That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at. 10 a.m. {: #subdebate-11-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Is the motion supported? *Four honorable- senators having risen* in *support of the motion,* {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- My purpose in moving, this motion is to direct the attention of the Government to the many anomalies in the national health scheme. I wish to' put on record my protest against the abuses to which the scheme has- been subjected by a number of members- of the medical profession. I also wish to direct attention to the irregularities and injustices that the taxpayers are. suffering under this scheme. In order to disclose the irregularities to which I have referred, it will be necessary for me to trace the brief but somewhat sordid history of. the health scheme. In, 1946j. the Labour Government decided to establish a national health scheme. It arrived at that decision because of the obvious need to remove from the people on the lower incomes their reluctance to seek medical attention because of the heavy cost involved. It is well- known that, in1 recent, years, medical science has advanced far ahead of the social provisions to convey that knowledge to the community. We have had an experience of that quite recently in connexion with the production of poliomyelitis vaccine. Medical attention, particularly in advanced stages of illness, often requires surveys and X-rays which are costly. In most cases; an operation follows, with expenses which are far beyond the ability of the average person to pay. For that reason the Chifley Labour Government decided that the care and preservation of the health of the people was a national obligation. On accepting responsibility for the. nation's health, that- Government imposed a tax, on a. graduated scale, which became known as a social services contribution. A levy was imposed on all persons earning £105 a year, or more. The tax was imposed specifically to provide free medicine and free .hospital treatment, and a major contribution towards the cost of the services of doctors and specialists. As ! have said, that tax has been in operation since 1946, and if a person was old enough and earned an income equal to the basic wage, which in Kew South Wales is £12 3s. a week, or a salary equivalent to £62.4 a year, he has paid £45 a year as social services contributions and is still paying £43 19s. 6d. The present Government's- national health scheme, instead of reducing the burden of taxation, increases the amount to be paid. Moreover, the imposition is made in a snide way; it is levied not as a direct tax, but indirectly. If a person desires to be covered for medical and hospital benefits he is compelled to join a. hospital or medical fund. In the case of the taxpayers, to whom I have referred - men on the basic wage: - that means a payment in addition, to the social services contribution to which I have already referred. It will be seen that, instead of paying less1 for medical and hospital attention, these taxpayers are paying more than under the Labour Government's- scheme. A single man without dependants who wishes to be covered for medical benefits, has to pay a further ls. 6d. per week to a medical fund, and- if' he wishes to be covered also for hospital treatment, he pays another ls. 6d. a week. That is an additional 3s. a week, or £7 16s. a year. That is a vicious imposition in favour of a medical benefits fund which has been fostered: and encouraged by the Menzies Government. I refer particularly to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, which is the largest fund of its kind in Australia. One of the objectionable features of the present scheme is that it makes no provision, whatever for persons, who are suffering from chronic illnesses ; yet they are compelled to join a medical benefits fund if they are to receive the government subsidy for which they have already paid tax at the rate of nearly £44 a year- since- 1946, if they were in the category to "which I have already referred. By the- end of the present financial year a taxpayer in this classification will have paid over £400 as social services contributions. That brings the social services contribution to £51 15s. 6d. a year, which is approximately £1 a week. The health scheme of the present Government should be known as the Doctors' Benefit Fund, because doctors are the people who are receiving the greatest benefit from the fund. {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator Wordsworth: -- The doctors will not agree with that statement. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- I do not suggest that they would admit it. A deputation that waited on the Minister for Health in New South Wales a. few weeks ago told him that doctors on the northern coal-fields received from £800 to £1,000 a month from the scheme. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA · ALP -pt. - Was that the total for all doctors, or the amount received by each doctor ? {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- I am gravely concerned about the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, which, as I. have already stated, is an organization that has been fostered and encouraged to the fullest degree by the present Menzies Government. In the early stages of that fund's operations, the Government had the effrontery to advertise in conjunction with the Medical Benefit Fund of Australia to the detriment of the friendly societies of this country - societies that had provided medical and pharmaceutical benefits to the people of Australia for nearly 100 years. The funds of that organization have increased enormously; from a revenue of about £12,000, in. 1950, its receipts have increased to over £2,000,000 a year. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and its associated organization, the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales, handle between them government business worth, over £1,000,000 a year in the form of a government subsidy. That is an enormous amount of money. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- That is right, brother. It is not chicken-feed'. It is real dough. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- I will have something to say about that later. The £13,000' that has been mentioned so freely in the lobbies of this Parliament is only chicken-feed compared with the financial aid that the Menzies-Fadden Government has received from the medical profession of Australia. The Government has not been slow to approach the medical profession. Just prior to the last elections, the following letter was sent out from the office of the New South Wales President of the Liberal party of Australia, National Buildings, 30 Ash-street, Sydney :- Dear Doctor, You will recall that a few years ago your profession was faced with the danger of nationalization. Due in no small measure to the support you gave the Liberal party, such action was delayed and the present National Health Scheme produced. This scheme is now being implemented, and it has been acclaimed, both here and overseas, as more nearly fulfilling the requirements specified by your profession for such a service than any other such plan throughout the world. lt has been established, but consolidation has not yet been achieved, and all members of your profession will recognize the vital necessity of keeping the present Federal Government in power in order to finally frustrate the threat to the liberty of your members. We need your full support and in particular your financial assistance . . . {: #subdebate-11-0-s2 .speaker-232369} ##### Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- A Liberal party slush fund ! {: #subdebate-11-0-s3 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- Yes, it is their slush fund- . . with which to maintain the organization to do this job. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- To fight communism. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- It has nothing to do with communism. The final paragraph of the letter reads - >Please respond to the best of your ability and send your cheque payable to the " FullertonScammell Trust" at the above, address. It is natural that one should expect to find anomalies in this Government's health scheme because it was established by regulation in an atmosphere of secrecy and suspicion. Reports of fraud and deception have been published in the press. Under-privileged members of the community have been denied hospital accommodation and treatment. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia is, in some instances, working in with the hospitals and the medical profession. There is a reluctance to treat patients in public wards even although - accommodation is available. An inquisition is held to deter mine whether a patient is a member of a benefit organization, the class of fund to which he subscribes, and the benefit to which he is entitled. In many instances, charges are based on the amount of the benefit that is available. A notable feature of the development and expansion of the Page national health scheme has been the extortion by some doctors, even for ordinary visits to hospitals. Abuses by doctors in New South Wales have become so great that the Minister for Health in that State, according to reports published in the press last week, has threatened prosecution of offenders. I am able to give the details of a typical case from the country which bears out my statements. I have with me a letter which I shall make available to the Minister for Health or anyone who desires to read it. However, in quoting the letter in this chamber, I shall omit the names of the doctor and the patient concerned. The letter reads - >I am writing you on a matter which I' think should be the subject of public ventilation, regarding the way the medical profession are filching money out of patients under cover of **Dr. Earle** Page's benevolent - to them - Medical Fund. On 2oth February, MISS, my wife consulted **Dr.- of** Edward-street, > >Orange, with a blood poisoned knee and was ordered to Orange Base Hospital for treatment. She entered an intermediate ward for four days, leaving on 1st March, 1955. During that time **Dr.- visited** her on his routine rounds of the hospital each day, and after her discharge submitted an account for £3 equal to 15s. for each hospital visit. I have the receipt for the payment. Many other patients have had a similar experience. I propose now to draw the attention of the Government to some further anomalies in the Page health scheme. One case which was brought to my notice early last year concerns a patient who went into a country hospital with pneumonia. Cerebral hemorrhage developed and a specialist was sent from Sydney to the country town, Parkes. He was a good specialist and his fee was one hundred guineas. No exception was taken to his fee because he was well qualified and was one of the best in his field. Of course, he was entitled to. that fee, and it was paid to him by the wife of the patient. Immediately the doctor saw the patient, he ordered his removal to Sydney, where he was admitted, first to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and eventually, as he was a returned soldier, to the Concord Repatriation Hospital. He was subsequently in and out of hospital for a considerable time. Some months later, I received the following letter from his wife : - >Dear sir, > >I would appreciate it if you could grant me an interview to discuss a claim I have with the M.B. Fund. Here are a few details. My husband took ill over twelve months ago and was admitted to the Parkes Hospital (our home town ) . His condition was so grave a Specialist had to fly 'up for a consultation, the result being my husband was flown to Sydney the same day and admitted to R.P.A. Hospital. The Specialist's fee was 100 guineas, and had to be paid after his consultation. This was done and last week I received reimbursement from the Fund of £2 13s., which I consider inadequate. If you can help I would greatly appreciate it. T should think it was inadequate. This case, also, supports my contention in relation to anomalies. I am not complaining about the amount of the specialist's fee, because he is a very capable doctor and had to leave a lucrative practice in order to travel several hundred miles to see the patient. But surely, when huge sums of money are being accumulated in medical benefits funds, special provision should be made for such cases. Huge surpluses have been accumulated by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited in a short period of time. That fund is now reaching colossal proportions. It is larger than the remaining 24 friendly society and industrial organization funds registered in New South "Wales combined. It has a membership of about 1,250,000 persons, including dependants, and covers 60 per cent, of all medically insured persons. It is true, as is stated in the balance-sheet of the organization, that the Medical Benefits Fund of New South Wales Limited has increased the benefit payable in respect of the removal of an appendix. It is compulsory for fund benefits to match the Government subsidy, but in this instance the fund pays more than the amount of the Government subsidy. In respect of the removal of an appendix, the Government subsidy, is £5 12s. 6d., and the fund pays £9 7s. 6d., making a total of £15. However, according to the apparent degree of prosperity of the patient, the fee charged for an appendix operation ranges from 30 guineas to 100 guineas. The Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales, to which I have referred, covers more than 1,600,000 people. Its current income is £2,200,000 a year, and its reserves total £890,000. Recently, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health **(Senator Cooper)** a question in relation to this matter, and he stated that he would like to see many millions more in the fund. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- Let me point out that, despite the huge surplus in the fund, there is not nearly sufficient hospital accommodation available for patients in New South Wales. It is obvious that the people of Australia are being compelled to subscribe too much to these funds. Instead of accumulating huge reserves, which cannot be utilized, they should reduce the - high rates of contributions. Despite the fact that the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales has a reserve of £890.000, in New South Wales a patient, no matter how ill he may be, has to wait for weeks to obtain hospital accommodation. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- The honorable senator is reflecting on the New South Wales Government. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- The huge surplus in that fund is of no benefit to the hospitals in New South Wales. That organization is now taking steps to purchase buildings. I should like to know what equity its subscribers will have in the buildings. {: #subdebate-11-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-11-0-s5 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Tasmania -- I listened with a great deal of interest to the matters that were raised by **Senator Ashley** because, in addition to the fact that they relate to one of the keystones *of* this Government's policy, they are most important to the people of Australia. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Liberal party of Australia, to thank him very much for reading our appeal to the doctors for financial help. We need financial help urgently from the freedomloving people of Australia. After all, we saved the medical profession from nationalization. Its members contributed to our funds in the interests of selfpreservation - the same reason for which the Communist party contributed £13,000 to the Labour party. The Communists knew which party would preserve them. **Senator Ashley** is joined in his complaints by a socialist colleague, the Minister for Health in Tasmania. Both of them have used every endeavour to snipe at this wonderful health scheme. In producing a health scheme, the Government has done something that the Labour Government failed to do. That is the reason for Opposition complaints. This health scheme is rapidly becoming a model. The eyes of the world are focussed on it, and when it is proved a success the whole world will be eager to adopt it. **Senator Ashley** and the Minister for Health in Tasmania, **Dr.** Turnbull, constantly harp on the profits made by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited. They completely ignore the fact that this is a nonprofitmaking organization. Their attempt to instill into people's minds that a profit is paid out to directors and shareholders is nothing but false representation of the true position. They know that any organization that is registered under the medical benefits scheme is very limited in the amount that it can spend on expenses and salaries. **Senator Ashley** and Dr.Turnbull know that the profits of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited have been built up and are being put into reserve funds in order to deal with any emergency that may arise. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- What for? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: **- Senator Hendrickson** is a critic of this scheme, yet he does not know what the reserve funds are for. Apparently, the Opposition recommends that in the event of an epidemic or other great catastrophe occurring which would place a sudden heavy demand on this fund, the fund should have no money in the kitty to pay out. What would a Labour government do under such circumstances? Either it would recommend that the claims be not paidor it would tax the people in order to obtain the necessary money. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited is amassing a proper reserve which can only be used for the benefit of the people who have insured themselves voluntarily with it. I have heard **Senator Ashley** indulge in falserepresentation more than once. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- I rise to order. I take exception to the term "false representation ". I made no false representations. I quoted authorities for everything that I said with due regard for the protection of the names of doctors and other people concerned. The term " false representation " is offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood).-** Does the honorable senator withdraw his remark ? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- No. **Senator Ashley** does not know what I am going to say yet. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - **Senator Ashley** states that you have said that he makes false representations and that that remark is offensive to him. He has asked that you withdraw those words. That is his right under standing orders and I ask you to withdraw the words. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- In deference to you, **Mr. Deputy President,** I withdraw them.. I shall now deal with the fact which **Senator Ashley** could not wait to hear. In the course of his speech, **Senator Ashley** said that a taxpayer is forced to join this fund in order to receive the Commonwealth hospital benefit. That is not true. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- It istrue. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- It is misrepresentation because persons who are admitted to hospital receive 8s. a day under the hospital benefits scheme whether they are insured or not. If they have insured themselves, they receive an additional 4s. a day. But they receive 8s. a day whether they are insured or not. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- Provision was made for that payment before the present Government came to office. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- There is constant misrepresentation to the effect that it is necessary to join an organization in order to receive the Government benefit. It is rather interesting to examine some of the results of this terrible scheme which **Senator Ashley** says is not wanted by the people. Let us see whether the people want it or not. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- They have to join an approved organization. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- They do not. When the hospital benefits scheme commenced in 1952, 1,052,000 persons contributed to approved benefit funds. Now, such funds have 1,980,000 members. In 1952, 2,154,000 people were covered by the scheme which now covers 4,754,000 people who have voluntarily insured themselves. Yet, **Senator Ashley** has the hide to say that the people of Australia do not want the scheme. Throughout Australia 56 per cent, of the people are insured under the Government's .scheme. In **Senator Ashley's** own State, New South Wales, 70 per cent, of the people have insured themselves. Yet, this senator from New South Wales says that the people of New South Wales do not want the scheme. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- They want a real scheme, not a doctor's scheme. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- The Tasmanians are a hard-headed race. I am proud of the fact that 90 per cent, of Tasmanians have taken advantage of this insurance scheme. Tasmanians know a bargain when they see in and they take full advantage of it. These facts completely refute the allegations of **Senator Ashley** that this is a compulsory scheme and that people have to insure with companies which are not purely non-profit making. **Senator Ashley** mentioned a new building which the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited is constructing in Sydney. Of course, it was a great mistake to construct a building in such a hot-house as Sydney. But **Senator Ashley** alleged that the fund should not erect the building. He suggested that the cost of constructing the building would prevent the fund from -meeting its commitments. The great insurance companies, such as the Australian Mutual Provident Society and the Temperance and General Mutual Life Society Limited, have very great buildings in Sydney and other cities of the world. Is he going to suggest that those great institutions should not meet their insurance claims? What rot! It is normal procedure for any great mutual; non-profit .making institution to' house itself in the cheapest possible w.ay, which is to erect a building, let a part of it and use the rest itself. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- Why compare it with the insurance companies if it is non-profit making? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- The great Australian Mutual Provident Society is also non-profit making. Surely the honorable senator knows these things. I was very interested to note that **Senator Ashley** is apparently now posing as the champion of the friendly societies. The fact is that the Australian Labour party intended to destroy the societies entirely under its national health scheme. The fact that Labour then proposed to nationalize the doctors and chemists *is* now forgotten by the supporters of the party. The people of Australia rejected their nationalization scheme. I thought it was very interesting to see **.Senator Ashley** trying to appear as the defender of the friendly societies because a perfectly normal mutual society is building up a business in Australia of which it can be proud. What can this mutual benefit association, which has been attacked, do with its funds? I suggest that it can disburse them in two ways. It can increase the benefits given to those insured with it, or it can reduce premiums. I have no doubt that it will continue as it has in the past and, in due course, increase benefits, but I hope that it will not do so. I hope that it will not assume any further liability or reduce the premiums until such time as it has full reserves to deal with an epidemic or a great catastrophe, which could happen. It is the normal procedure of every mutual insurance company to put sufficient in the kitty in good days to meet the position when bad days come. Apparently, that principle does not appeal to many honorable senators opposite, including **Senator Tangney.** The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-11-0-s6 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland -- Valuable time has .been saved by **Senator .Henty** resuming his seat. When he rose to speak, he bad no serious intention of answering the grave charges made by **Senator Ashley.** Those charges went a great deal further than the position to which **Senator Henty** addressed himself. The honorable senator must have been out of the chamber when **Senator Ashley** referred to the fraud and robbery practised by the medical profession in New South "Wales. **Senator Henty** was conveniently silent on those charges. **Senator Ashley** went further and said that there were conspiracies between members of the medical profession and chemists in New South "Wales. Did **Senator Henty** answer any of those charges ? There is no doubt about the truth of the charges made by **Senator Ashley,** because it is not so very long, ago that the Minister for Health **(Sir Earle Page)** stated in the press that if the national health scheme broke down it would be due entirely to the malpractices of members of the medical profession and certain chemists in Australia. I suggest that honorable senators opposite who propose to follow me in this discussion deal with that statement by the Minister for Health and try to explain what it meant. **Senator Ashley's** charges were specific. He charged the medical profession with surreptitiously gaining fees from various funds. Whether they are controlled by registered organizations or not is beside the point, because all of those things are part and. parcel of our national health scheme. **Senator Henty** completely bypassed the points made by **Senator Ashley** about the medical benefits charges and so forth, and the benefits to be gained. Was he serious when he tried to indicate to the Senate that any person in the community could get medical benefits without being e. contributor to a registered organization? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- -But the honorable senator dealt with hospital benefits. I wish to be fair to him {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- I. said " hospital benefits ". {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I come from a State where it is possible for all members of the community to go into public hospitals and receive free hospital treatment and free medicine. That is in a Labour-governed State and the system there is a challenge to those responsible for the national health scheme. {: .speaker-K2A} ##### Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP -- The Labour Government in Queensland used to run butchers' shops, did it not? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- It may have done so. If it did, I am sure that people derived some benefit from the undertaking. The charges made by **Senator Ashley** are serious ones, because if such things are going on in the community it would seem that there is another "Bell Bay" within the national health scheme, and an investigation is called for. I remember very well that, in 1953, when the National Health Bill was before the Senate, we on this side of the chamber tried to ensure that it would contain provisions for the protection of the people. We knew all about registered organizations, and we pointed out at the time that registered organizations really formed the wheels on which the whole national health scheme moved. If the registered organizations were to collapse, the whole national health scheme would collapse also. I am sure that honorable senators can remember the discussions which took place then and that we on this side of the chamber pointed out how important it was to protect the people in respect -of those organizations. When we examined the bill we found that, on the surface, a fair measure of protection was afforded, but we felt that an organization which was to be allowed to collect money from members of the community for the purpose of providing them with funds with which to meet their hospital and medical obligations would be performing an important function. We examined the legislation relating to the examining committee in respect of registered organizations, and we found that the Commonwealth Actuary was to be a member of the committee. I take it he would be the chairman. He was to be assisted by two officers of the Department of Health. With gentlemen of that calibre on the committee, we felt that we need not concern ourselves with it to any great extent. We thought that, as the Commonwealth Actuary was on t,he committee, immediately an application for registration was received from an organization, the ages of the members of the organization would be assessed, and an assessment would be made of the contributions payable in each case and, as far as possible, the nature of the benefits to be provided by the organization. The duty of the examining committee was to refer the application to the Minister in charge. I mention these matters because the Government is involved in the charges that have been made by **Senator Ashley.** It cannot escape scot-free. When the legislation was introduced, it appeared that the organizations would be aloof entirely from government control in respect of the services they rendered for health and medical benefits, but we find that the affinity between them and the Government is very close. Honorable senators on the Government side claim that those organizations are conducted independently of the Government, but their constitution and mode of operation make them almost wholly a national concern, controlled indirectly by the Government. The Government must answer the serious charge that has been made by **Senator Ashley** to the effect that the Minister for Health can alter the rules of the organizations. He has power to do so before they are registered, and even after they are registered he can insist on an alteration of the terms of their rules to suit his purposes. In connexion with that matter, it is important that I should state again some of the powers of the committee in dealing with these matters. They include the following: - >In making a recommendation in pursuance of such preceding sub-section, the committee shall take into account, in the case of an application for registration as a registered medical benefits organization, the number of persons who contribute to the medical benefits fund of the organization, the rate of contribution made by each of those persons to that fund, the amount of benefits payable by the organization to, or in respect of, those persons, the professional services which are arranged for, or in respect of which fund benefits arc payable to and in respect of those persons, the rules of the organization relating to payments out of the medical benefits fund of tile , organization, and the ratio which the amount paid as management and administration expenses bears to the amount of payments made by contributors to the medical benefits fund of the organization. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber found in those words sufficient protection for the members of the organizations, but **Senator Ashley** has referred to the malpractices of doctors. That is the matter that I wish to emphasize. **Senator Ashley** stated that some medical practitioners visited a public or private hospital where they had one patient to see. While they were seeing that patient, they also interviewed other patients in the same ward, and when an account was rendered, they were able to charge each patient they had seen, although they had, at that time, no purpose in seeing more than one patient in the hospital. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- What is wrong with that? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- If **Senator Kendall** endorses cold-blooded- robbery there is nothing wrong with it, but if he is conscientious and has a sense of decency, he will agree that there is much that is wrong with it. I shall not be satisfied with only a debate on this matter. **Senator Ashley's** charges are very serious, and later this year I propose to move for the setting up of a Senate select committee to investigate this matter. I am not concerned with the large reserves that are being built up by the organizations. As **Senator Henty** has said, they might require them later, but I am concerned with the fees that are charged by doctors for services that are not worth while. Surely there is some way in which these charges can be investigated. This Government has power to appoint an officer to go into the offices of the registered organizations, examine their books, accounts and records, and take away those books and documents to the Minister's office if necessary. The Government can go even further. It can summon members of registered organizations before its representatives for the purpose of giving evidence. Therefore, surely it is possible for the Government to appoint some officer of the Department of Health to investigate secretly the charges that are being levied by the medical profession? According to the statements that have been made by **Senator Ashley,** the evidence i3 overwhelming. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber accept his oral evidence, but he has gone further and supported it with documentary proof. He has a document *which* shows that fees of 15s. have been charged by members of the medical profession for nodding their heads as they passed a bed and saying, "How are you.?". I am confident that many honorable senators on the Government, side do not approve of that practice and privately, at least, support me in my remarks. They do not stand for that kind of practice in any branch of business activity. {: #subdebate-11-0-s7 .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON:
South Australia -- I, and other- honorable senators, have been wondering why this motion for a formal adjournment is before the Senate to-day. I can only conclude that as the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast, honorable senators on the Opposition side are not anxious to proceed with the debate on foreign affairs which should be in progress now. That debate would transcend in importance any motion that is now before the Senate, But the time is being, used to debate **Senator Ashley's** motion. I believe it is fair comment: to- suggest that honorable senators on the Opposition side are not keen, to debate foreign affairs. They are striving desperately to find an issue upon which they can rally their supporters and cry to hide the split within their ranks. They are as divided in this chamber as they are in another place.- In an endeavour to. conceal their differences they are seeking- to mislead the people of Australia by suggesting that the medical and hospital benefits scheme, for which this Government is responsible,, has broken down-, and has failed. I can only assume that **Senator Ashley** was actuated by the motives I have mentioned in putting forward this motion. He stated that this Government's record with the health and medical scheme was a sordid history. I thought at first he was referring to the scheme that was promoted by the present Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna)** when he was Minister for Health in the previous Labour Government. If a.ny scheme could be described as sordid, it was the scheme for which the present Leader of the Opposition was responsible. That scheme would not work and it failed miserably. In comparison, this Government has introduced a scheme that is working successfully, and I shall cite a few figures, to prove that statement. Disinterested persons who know something of this matter have assembled unbiased information about this scheme which is available to us. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator Cooke: -- The Government is disinterested. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- *I* referred to people who have no axe to grind - people who have come to Australia from other countries and have seen the scheme in operation. Visitors from the United States of America have described the Australian hospital and benefits scheme as the- best scheme of its kind in- t,h, world. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- They must ha vh come here before, it started. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- They have been here since it started. The honorable senator should make himself acquainted with these statements of people from other countries who are qualified to speak on the subject. I was astonished that **Senator Benn** should rise in his place and accuse the medical profession of Australia of robbery and fraudulent practices. I think those were his words; .1 do not wish to do the honorable; senator any injustice by misquoting him.. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- Does: not: the honorable senator- know, that doctors and chemists have been prosecuted? {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- I thank the honorable senator for reminding me of what has happened. If any member of the medical profession is guilty of malpractice I suggest that, the States already have on their statute-books legislation to deal with him. If the honorable senator knows that: such practices exist why does he not get in touch with the State authorities with a view to thi? offenders being prosecuted?- The present Government has brought in a scheme in which members, of the medical profession have co-operated. They would not work under the Labour Government's scheme because they knew that it meant the nationalization of the medical profession. If there is any malpractice on the part of doctors or chemists, as **Senator Ashley** has suggested, it is not right to blame the Commonwealth Government. Et is a matter for the States. Has the honorable senator anything to say in reply to that statement? He has not; he is silent for once in his life. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- I saw the Acting Deputy President looking at me. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- Reference has been made to the acceptance of this scheme- by the people of Australia. **Senator Henty** told us that 57 per cent, of the Australian community had availed themselves of the facilities provided under this: Government's scheme. 1 emphasize that no-one is compelled to join the scheme. Membership of benefit organizations is purely voluntary. In New South "Wales participants in the scheme total 70. per cent, of the population. **Senator Ashley** will have difficulty in explaining away that fact. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- The honorable senator can leave that to me. I do not want his help. **Senator- PEARSON.-** -For the three months ended September, 1952, Commonwealth hospital benefits were paid in respect of 425,000 patient bed-days. In the corresponding quarter of 1953 the number of patient bed-days rose to 1.218,000. For the same period in 1954 the number was 1,726,000 and it is expected that in the current year the records will show a total of approximately 7,000,000 patient bed-days. At the rate of 30s. a day that is over £10,000,000. On the medical insurance side the Government and the insurance funds are now paying combined benefits in respect of 10,000,000 individual medical services each year. As Australia's population is approximately 9,000,000 people, those figure show that the equivalent of one benefit to every person in the community is provided annually under the scheme. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- One person may receive service a hundred times during the year. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- That may be, but the average covers every person in the comm'unity. T am glad that I myself have not yet had reason to call on the fund to which I contribute, and I hope that **Senator Ashley** enjoys equally good health. Let me cite some further figures. The 10,000,000 individual medical services to which I referred just now does not include 5,000,000 pensioner medical services provided by the Government. Those services, which are in addition to the figures I have already given, cost at least £10,000,000. I shall now refer to the life-saving drugs which are available under the Government's scheme. The scheme of the Chifley Labour Government, known generally as the McKenna scheme, made no provision' for the free issue of lifesaving drugs. The Menzies Government introduced this scheme under which lifesaving drugs ai-e provided free to the people of Australia at a cost of nearly £9,000,000. In the three fields to which I have referred, about £30,000,000 a year has been expended for the benefit of people needing medical attention. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- The Government collects £100,000,000 a year for the purpose. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: **- Senator Ashley** condemned' the various funds because they were building up huge reserves. In my opinion,, the accumulation of reserves is the best thing that could possibly happen. It is well that these funds should have reserves. **Senator Henty** referred to this matter briefly. What would the position be if there were no reserves,, and disease in epidemic form broke out in the community? Surely **Senator Ashley** can visualize that possibility: Does he not think that, in the event of an epidemic, the scheme would break down if the benefit funds had no reserves, and could not meet their obligations? {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- What about the hospitals ? {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- Does the honorable senator deny that if there were no reserves an epidemic could place the benefit funds in a position in which they could not meet their obligations? Again, the honorable senator is silent, aud again his- silence means consent. I repeat that, the best thing that could happen is that these funds should be financially strong. If they build up strong reserves it is only reasonable to expect that, in course of rime, the organizations themselves will give further benefits, and perhaps eliminate some of the anomalies that may exist in the scheme. That is to be expected because it is sound business. {: .speaker-K2S} ##### Senator Robertson: -- It would be good housekeeping. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- Unless there are adequate reserves, people who become sick will have no guarantee that they will receive proper attention. It is all very well to say that certain additional benefits, such as hospitals for persons chronically ill and for aged people should be provided. The benefit funds can enlarge their benefits only if they have strong reserves. I hope that my remarks will not be wasted on **Senator Ashley.** {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- How are the reserves of the funds being used? {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- I ask the honorable senator to reflect on the position of the hospitals of this country only a few years ago. I know the position in South Australia best, but I believe it was as bad, if not worse, in most of the other States. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- Conditions were worse in the other States. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: -- I believe that was so. Most hospitals were rapidly approaching a state of bankruptcy. They had no reserves, and were continually going to governments cap in hand asking for financial assistance. The governments could provide additional assistance only by imposing further taxes. But what is the state of the hospitals to-day? Throughout Australia, in capital cities and in country districts, hospitals, both large and small, are in a much stronger financial position. They are no longer nearly in a state of bankruptcy. One result of their stronger financial position is that they are now able to extend their services to the community. It is a terrible thing for a hospital to know that it has not funds to carry on its services to the community, or even to pay the salaries of its nurses and other employees. The claim that this Government's scheme has lifted the hospitals to a much sounder financial plane than they enjoyed previously cannot be gain said. The basis of the Labour party's objection to the Government's medical and hospital benefits scheme is that it provides for self-help on the part of the community. We on. this side of the chamber believe in self-help. Such a scheme obviates the risk of the abuses which have crept into medical and hospital benefits schemes elsewhere - in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, for instance - where no charge is levied on those who receive the benefits. If honorable senators generally will take the trouble to acquaint themselves with the position in other countries they will realize the burden which they impose on taxpayers. We tried to avoid those abuses, and have succeeded. Under a completely free medical benefits scheme, some people will run to a doctor whenever they get a headache. Such malingerers place a heavy burden on the taxpayers. The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin).** - The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-11-0-s8 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- I agree with supporters of the Government when they say that the motion before the Senate relates to a vital matter which should be discussed, but they are all of one mind in claiming credit for the benefits provided by the Government's national health scheme, whereas when deficiencies in the scheme are mentioned they hasten to pass the responsibility on to the States. The present Government did not accept with good grace the establishment of a national health scheme. It took over from a Labour government a scheme which aimed at giving the people of this country free treatment in public wards of hospitals. The Labour Government, when it envisaged a health scheme for the people, had in mind the preservation of health and the granting of security to all the people. As I have said, the present Government took over that scheme with ill grace. It was not game to reject the scheme altogether, although its members threatened to do so, but it decided to change the scheme. The result is that we have a scheme which is not operating satisfactorily. The Opposition does not deny that large sums of public money are being expended on this scheme, but we on. this side submit that that money is not being expended in the best interests of the sick and the poor in the community who need medical attention. **Senator Ashley** has shown by documents from which he read that many abuses exist. *Silting suspended from* *12.45* *to 2.S0 p.m.* {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I have emphasized the gravity of the charges that **Senator Ashley** has made about the administration of the national health scheme, the activities of various organizations that are operating under that scheme, and the abuses that have been indulged in by certain members of the British Medical Association. The Government admits that the operation of its health scheme has involved the expenditure of huge sums of money. We of the Labour party claim that the expenditure of that money has not provided a truly national health scheme, nor has it relieved the plight of sick people who require hospital and medical treatment. Whilst the Government is always willing to claim the credit for any benefits that may appear to accrue to the general public under its health plans, all shortcomings of the scheme are blamed upon the State governments. Honorable senators opposite cannot have it both ways. **Senator Pearson** supported his statements to the Senate by quoting the remarks of people whom he claimed to be disinterested observers. I say candidly that the people in this country who are least interested in the national health scheme occupy the Government benches in this Parliament. They took over from the Chifley Government the National Welfare Fund, which had been accumulated to ensure to all members- of the community freedom from fear of heavy expense in time of sickness. Labour's object in establishing that fund was to improve our national health standards and to ensure the best available medical and hospital treatment for the sick, regardless of their economic circumstances. That scheme has been gradually but surely destroyed, with the result that fear of expense incurved in time of sickness is now as great as, or even greater than, it has ever been in the .history of our social services. The cost of hospital treatment has increased. Sick people find it almost impossible to get accommodation in the public wards of our hospitals. In fact, it is difficult to gain admission even to intermediate wards. Then, whatever hospital accommodation a patient has been able to obtain, when his period of sickness has ended, he is confronted with heavy expenses which are by no means recouped either by payments from a medical fund, if he is fortunate enough to belong to one, or by the Government's subsidy. The Government claims that no one is compelled to join a benefit fund. Strictly speaking, that is quite true, but if a person does not join a benefit organization, even although he, as a taxpayer has been contributing to the funds from which the Government subsidy is drawn, the treatment he receives is not as good as that given to members of benefit funds. This means that, in effect, people are compelled to join benefit organizations. That cannot be denied. At present, chronic sufferers are heavily penalized. They can join benefit organizations, but they have to be members for at least two years before they become entitled to the benefits of those organizations. Such discrimination would not exist in a truly national health scheme. We on this side of the chamber, and I am sure most honorable senators opposite, believe that sufferers from chronic illnesses should become eligible immediately for medical and hospital benefits. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- They have been taxed since 1946 to pay for such benefits. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- That is so. The Government *has* shown a callous disregard of the abuses that have become rife under its health, scheme, and appears to have no interest whatsoever in the manner in which public funds are spent. I have no doubt that many medical men in this country are just as concerned with the health of Australian citizens as we are. but, due to the lethargic and lackadaisical attitude of the Government to its obligation to introduce a workable national health scheme, there has been a deterioration of our health services. The existence of abuses is blamed by the Minister for Health **(Sir Earle Page)** on the States, but the States do not have power to control the British Medical Association. Apublic controversy is being 'carried on at present in the newspapers on the subject of whether doctors should be permitted to charge fees for visits to patients in public wards ofhospitals. But some doctors are already charging for those visits. The Minister, unfortunately, makes all his public pronouncements in the press. He never says in this Parliament what he is doing about abuses. A recent press paragraph about the national health scheme stated - The Federal Health Minister, **Sir Earle** Page, said today that charging of all doctors'' fees was purely a matter for the States. " But it is true that certain doctors overcharge," he said. " The B.M.A. has been trying hard to keep charges at a uniform level. The Government has no real knowledge of the manner in which the funds that it allocates to the States are being spent. It knows roughly in percentages where the money goes,but it has not sought to control abuses. A vast proportion of the money is going to hospitals and doctors. Yet the Minister has the effrontery to state through the press that these are matters for the States; that he is not concerned about them ; and that, in any case, he does not know whether he can do anything, because the British Medical Association says that he must permit the present practices to continue. The Government has neglected its duty to promote an efficient national health scheme. 'The propagandists of the Government parties tell us that this Administration knows what should be done and will do something. But it does not do anything. In fact, it is impeding the work of interested organizations such as nurses' societies and of certain sections of the medical fraternity which are seeking to have improved health and medical services provided. The following is a quotation from a journal issued by the Commonwealth Department of Health last year: - {: .page-start } page 88 {:#debate-12} ### PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING SERVICES Compared with services abroad, these are inadequate in Australia. An example of a high standard of public health nursing is found in the City of Toronto. . . . Then the article sets out what is considered to be a reasonably high standard of nursing for public health services. The Government admits that, in this country, such services are inadequate. The in ference to bedrawnfromstatementspublished in connexion with theantitubercutlosis campaign is thatthe Government is really concerned about this matter. But I say it is not concerned about it. That is amply borne out by the following: quotation from the journal to which I have already referred : - {: .page-start } page 88 {:#debate-13} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-13-0} #### NURSING STAFF Shortage of trained staff is likely to persist, particularly in those Sanatoria inconveniently located. Our attitude to nursing, and especially to the role of the trained nurse in tuberculosis, needs re-orientation. Those matters were brought to the notice of the Government by its own health advisers, backed by organizations of nurses and medical men who have a genuine interest in the Health of the Australian community. But the Government has done nothing whatever. I come now to the shortage of nurses. In the back country of Western Australia, and I am sure in the country areas of every State, hospitals have the greatest difficulty in obtaining trained nurses. Staff shortages are preventing hospital accommodation from being fully utilized in some areas. Indeed, some hospitals have had to close down for this reason. In the capital cities the position may be a little better, but there, too, hospital staffs are far from adequate. Hospital costs have increased considerably because of the need for highly trained personnel for modern treatment of disease. For instance, the ever-increasing use of serums means that more qualified nurses are required in our hospitals. A submission was made to the Government in 1954 by the Australian College of Nursing. The college appealed to the Government, which boasts of its interest in public health, to assist it to set up an institution in which nurses could be given post-graduate training so that an adequate number of highly qualified nurses would be available to assist in the national health scheme. Such nurses would be able not only to relieve the pressure on doctors, but also to reduce the cost of medical treatment to patients by undertaking certain minor services which at present are provided only by doctors. For instance, injections can be given by qualified nurses. The first steps in the proposal for the establishment of facilities in Australia for post-graduate nursing education can be traced, to the sinking of the hospital' ship *Centaur* during the war. Honorable senators will recall, that several nurses sacrificed their lives in that disaster. On several occasions since then, nursing organizations have approached the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance under the national health scheme to extend their training facilities. It is of interest to note the names of some of the people who have been associated with this move. They include Miss A. M. Sage, C.B.E., former Matron in Chief, Royal Australian Army Nursing Corps, **Mrs. A.** M. Walsh, O.B.E., of Western Australia, Miss J. W. Townsend, of New South Wales, and Miss D. Bardsley, of Queensland. Those are all prominent names in the nursing world. {: #subdebate-13-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s1 .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER:
South Australia .- In moving for the adjournment of the. Senate to discuss this matter, **Senator Ashley** is supported by his colleagues in the Opposition benches. He set out to prove three things - that there are abuses by the medical profession; that injustices are being suffered by the taxpayers; and that irregularities are occurring under the national health scheme. He failed to substantiate- any of those allegations. His charges have been supported by other Labour senators. One often hears in this chamber attacks by Opposition members on the medical profession, but I believe that the attacks made to-day by **Senator Ashley,** and supported and widened by **Senator Benn,** are the most slanderous and the most baseless charges that I have ever heard levelled against honorable men in any profession. The Opposition has not produced a single fact to justify the attack that it has made. What is the object of such a vile attack on. a noble profession? I should think it would be to undermine the great confidence that every patient has- in his medical adviser. For the successful operation of any health scheme, it is necessary that, the patients shall have confidence in the medical profession. Honorable senators opposite have set out deliberately to undermine that confidence by making baseless, charges and reckless allegations. Yet, if one. of their number thought to-morrow that he had appen dicitis he would, immediately/ rush for a doctor. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- Not'. **Dr. Page!** {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- Some honorable, senators opposite have alleged that doctors have collected fees for services they have not rendered. I think I am justified in saying that that is, in essence, the charge that was laid by both **Senator Ashley** and **Senator Benn.** They stated that, although doctors had not examined patients, they had charged fees. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- Yes, I referred to a fee of 15s. that was charged for services not rendered. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I do not believe that. Does **Senator Ashley** contend that a doctor should not be allowed to charge his own patient in a hospital a fee for services rendered in a hospital ward? Is not that fair and just? {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- The. patient to whom I referred paid his doctor a fee for the consultation. Subsequently, when the patient was in hospital,, the doctor, after only passing the time pf day to him on one occasion, charged him a fee of 15s. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- Does the honorable senator contend that a. doctor is -not. entitled to a just reward for professional services rendered to his patient in a hospital ward? {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- But that doctor merely walked through- the ward, said " Good-day " to his patient, and then charged him a fee of 15s.. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I come now to **Senator Benn's** contention, that there should be a secret inquisition into the financial position of the medical profession in Australia. I think those are the exact words that he used. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- Perhaps I have misquoted from my note. The honorable senator said that there should be a secret inquiry into the income of all doctors in Australia. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- If an inquiry is not an inquisition, I do not know what it is. If the honorable senator reads the *Mansard* report of his speech he will find that he did urge such an investigation. **Senator Ashley** referred to the 1 1 jiri ona! health scheme that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. We have heard a great deal about that scheme. Labour fell down on its job because the first objective of the scheme was to socialize the medical profession. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator Tangney: -- It was not. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I repeat, Labour failed miserably. The second objective of the scheme was to destroy the financial security of every friendly society in Australia. {: #subdebate-13-0-s2 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- What has the Government done now ! {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- This Government has strengthened considerably the financial structure of the friendly society movement. Labour's scheme required every person in receipt of an income of £1.04 a year to contribute to the national health scheme. **Senator Ashley** criticized the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited for accumulating a large reserve, but the previous Labour Government itself had a reserve of £130,000,000 in connexion with its health scheme. Every penny of that amount was expended, not on the health scheme, but for other government purposes. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- That is not right. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I challenge honorable senators opposite to prove that it was expended on social services. Not a penny of it was expended on social services, and they know it. If the previous Labour Government wanted to establish a credit balance of £130,000,000, it would have had to raise that amount by additional taxation, in order to balance its budget. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- Cut that out! {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I repeat, the previous Labour Government would have had to raise that money by taxation. But honorable senators opposite were not game to tell the people that that was the position, and endeavoured to hookwink them. Labour took subscriptions from people with incomes of £104 a year, but did not give them anything in return. Honorable senators opposite should not talk to me about their open-heartedness. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- Where is the money now? {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I do not know. Apparently the Labour Government expended it, but not on the provision of social services. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- The National Welfare. Fund was in credit when we left office. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- It was not in credit. The honorable senator is like Micawber who, having written himself an I O LT, said "Thank God that is paid ". It is my belief that the Labour Government expended the money on socialistic schemes and dreams, under the guise of providing a. national health scheme. **Senator Ashley** attacked the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, which is a voluntary, nonprofitmaking concern. Surely to goodness that should suit **Senator Ashley.** {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- He never made a profit in his life! {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- People have joined that fund of their own volition. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- They have to join a fund in order to qualify for the government subsidy. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- Many people have joined the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, because of their confidence in that organization. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- Who wrote the honorable senator's speech for him? {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: **- Senator Ashley** may examine my notes, which are in my own handwriting. There is no doubt where these notes came from, but there is grave doubt where other things came from. It is evident that the people have confidence in the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, because there are 1,980,000 contributors to the fund, who are entitled to receive benefits from it. As **Senator Henty** said, no directors' fees are paid, and distributions are not made to shareholders. Furthermore, there is a very strict limit on the amount that may be paid out in salaries. Surely no one could wish the society to be run on better rules. 1 have been a member of the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, which is a voluntary friendly society, for more than 50 years. I was very pleased, after the introduction of this Government's national health scheme, to see that society extend its range of benefits. I should like to refer, finally, to the benefits that have been provided, under our national health scheme, for sufferers from tuberculosis. In 1949, when the present scheme came into operation, the mortality rate of sufferers from tuberculosis was 25 per 100,000. I am sure that all honorable senators will be delighted to hear that; by 1954, the mortality rate had been reduced to ten per 100,000. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- Labour laid the foundations for that improvement. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- Such progress has been made in Tasmania that a 60-bed sanatorium for sufferers from tuberculosis, which is no longer required for that purpose, has been made available for general hospital purposes. Between 1950 and 1954 the disease was not only arrested, but cured in 9,426 cases, and the erstwhile sufferers have returned to active occupations. It is impossible to assess, in terms of money, the value of the happiness that has been restored to the families of those people. **Senator Pearson** stated that hospitals, particularly in country districts, had benefited considerably under the national health scheme. Those hospitals were struggling under great financial hardship prior to the advent of our scheme. It is pleasing to note that their finances are now in a very sound state. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s3 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
"Western Australia -- At the outset, I make it clear that I do not intend for a moment to decry the medical profession, because I, myself, owe so much to its members. Speaking generally, I have seen much evidence of the noble work that they have performed in private practice and at the hospitals. Of course, as in every other profession, there is perhaps a black sheep here and there in its ranks; but I would not condemn the whole of the medical profession because some of its members had been false to their oath to render service to the community. Nor do I intend, from the point of view of Western Australia, to condemn the hospital benefit fund, from which I have just received a cheque. However, that cheque was not for as much as I would have liked, and it was delayed. It is in that connexion that I shall make some comment. There is room for improvement of the machinery of the fund. For instance, a person can not claim on the fund until he has paid his doctor's or hospital account. In many cases, the terrific rise in hospital charge." has placed a great burden on sick people. {: .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator Wedgwood: -- The Government pays direct to the hospital. {: .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: -- The Government makes a payment direct to the hospital but the patient's payment from the hospital benefit fund is received after the patient has sent the fund his receipt for his payment to the hospital. The chronic sufferers are the people who are most in need of help from these funds. Yet they are unable to receive full benefits until they have been members for two years. Only the friendly societies have accepted the obligation to pay them full benefits immediately they join the society. The Government should pay some attention to the prices of medicines thai are sold to invalid and aged pensioners. In view of the fact that its budget? involve the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government could well give consideration to this matter which would require an expenditure of only a few thousand pounds. Such expenditure would make a big difference to pensioners. Many pensioners are under the impression that if their doctor orders them a medicine, they can obtain it free; whereas that is not so if the medicine is not on the approved list. For certain chronicillnesses, which do not result in immediate death, but which are very nerve destroying over a period of years, pensioners are unable to obtain relief unless they purchase very expensive medicines. This is particularly true of such illnesses as hay fever. Some people think that that disease is not very important, but it is important to the people who suffer from it. Some treatments for asthma have not been included on the Government's list All treatments that may be prescribed for pensioners by medical practitioners should be provided free of charge. I have known pensioners to be asked to pay 18s. 9d. for one course of treatment. Consequently, they were unable to obtain that treatment. One of the bones of contention in the health scheme that was proposed by the Labour Government was the formulary. The difficulties which arose between the British Medical Association and the Government in that connexion were not resolved. Even now, all medicines are not free. As the Labour Government affirmed in 1946, certain drugs have not yet proved their worth and they have not been included in the formulary. The British Medical Association has accepted the exclusion of those drugs by this Government although it would not accept such exclusion by the Labour Government. For certain medicines, a much higher charge is made when they are prescribed by a doctor than when they are sold as a proprietary line. When I went into a chemist's shop in order to obtain a prescription which is sold as a proprietary line for 5s. I was charged Ss. 6d. for it. That was the most easily earned 3s. 6d. that I have ever seen. This may appear to be only a small point, but a big saving could be made by policing thousands of such cases and this could result in additional benefits being made available. One of the features of this scheme which upsets me most is the very high charges that are made in public hospitals. I thought that the Labour Government had put an end to such charges. There used to be a sign outside the public hospital in Murray-street, Perth, which stated that the hospital was " for the indigent .sick ". I remember how proud we were when the Labour Government's hospital scheme made it possible to take away that .signboard. But the Chifley plan was abandoned by the present Government, and a new plan ^adopted under which the patient had to pay a proportion of his hospital account. In many cases the amount paid by the patient is large. With fees ranging from £12 12s. a week upwards, it is very difficult for people to pay their huge hospital bill in addition to contending with the difficulties which result from their convalescence. Opposition senators thought that the Labour Government had removed the worry of large hospital bills forever when its original hospital benefit scheme was introduced after consultations with the Social Security Committee, of which the present Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** was a valued member. I was a member of that committee, which visited most of the major hospitals in Australia in the course of its investigations. The committee found that a great deal of time was lost by people who could not afford to be ill and who did not seek hospital treatment until their disease had taken a great hold on them, mainly "because they feared to incur the cost of their hospitalization. Once the Labour Government removed the financial worry, their recovery became rapid, because their disease was arrested in time. The social security committee considered that treatment in public hospitals should be free in order that the very best medical attention should be made available to those who needed it most. We found that two classes of people in the community could afford the very best medical attention. One class consisted of those who were wealthy enough to pay for the very best. The other class consisted of the very poor who received attention as a charity and not as a right. We decided that such attention should be the right of every.body. But that principle was not -adopted by this Government. We are now told that greater good is being done to the people because of their voluntary membership of hospital benefits societies. Although membership of such societies is voluntary, people are subject to economic pressure to join because, if they do not join the societies, the Government withholds its extra allowance. People have to join a benefits fund in order to receive the additional amount from the Government. Consequently, it cannot be said that mem.mership of the benefits funds is purely voluntary. I was a member of a hospital benefit society long before the Government's benefit .scheme came into existence. I believe that people should insure themselves against illness, but I do not believe that the Government should, in effect, make certain societies its agents. In the course of this debate honorable senators opposite have said that the Labour health scheme aimed to nationalize the doctors. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was on a committee which dealt with this subject for years. We tried by every means to secure the co-operation of the doctors, not in order to nationalize them, but in order to give the people of Australia a decent national health scheme. We regarded the good health of the community as a first priority task for the Government, particularly in the post-war years. But we did not receive the cooperation that we deserved from the doctors. I am sure that **Senator Cooper** remembers that we had a conference with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association and that every one present was in agreement on the Friday afternoon. The meeting then adjourned until Monday. When we returned in order to resume the conference, the British Medical Association representatives were not there and word was received by the chairman that negotiations had been broken off. We still do not know why they were broken off. We did not try to stampede the doctors. We tried to secure their co-operation. The health of the people and a national health scheme should be far above party politics. We bad representatives from both sides of the chamber on that committee. But every time the Labour Government introduced a new benefit to the community, the benefit was nullified by the actions of people outside this Parliament. The Labour Government introduced additional maternity benefits of 25s. a week for expectant mothers for a month before they went into maternity hospital and a month after they came out. In order to facilitate the handling of the payments in the office, and in order to avoid duplication, it was decided that the money should be paid in a lump sum. In other words, an additional £10 was added to the maternity bonus, making it £15. This is what then happened in Western Australia, as Matron Walsh stated at .the time. More than .90 ;per cent. of the mothers of Western Australia were suddenly found to be in urgent need of specialist attention at the birth of their children, whereas previously, only 10 per cent, required such attention. Consequently, the medical fee was raised to £15 and the mother received no benefit from the increased payment. I raised that matter in this chamber and some honorable senators opposite thought that I -was being facetious. I was not being facetious. After I had related the circumstances in this Senate, the Labour Government arranged for the mothers, if they so desired, to receive a payment each week instead of a lump sum. That was the greatest step that has ever been taken towards improving the health of a community, not excluding the discovery of the Salk vaccine, because in the course of a few hours the proportion of mothers requiring specialist attention dropped from 90 per cent, to the normal 10 per cent. What Labour has done for the health of the community cannot be gainsaid by the Government, which has implemented some of the benefits that the Labour Government tried to introduce. {: #subdebate-13-0-s4 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP ; - The adjournment of the Senate has been moved in order to discuss the alleged anomalies, irregularities, and injustices that have been imposed on the taxpayers of this country by the Menzies Government national health scheme. The discussion that has taken place on this subject has related chiefly to medical and hospital benefits; but the health scheme of the 'Government embraces far more social services and benefits than the medical and hospital benefits scheme. Before this very comprehensive scheme came into operation, various schemes .in other countries were closely .investigated to see whether they could be made applicable to this country. Those schemes included the ones in operation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States o!f America. Of .course, the United Kingdom and New Zealand .schemes function not as insurance schemes but as what might be called free-for-all schemes, and the taxpayers pay for the -whole of .the bene- fits. During the past few years they have been found to be most expensive and unsuitable. They do not provide the best type of benefits for the large sums of money that are being expended on them. In implementing a health scheme in this country, it was decided that a new approach should be made and that, instead of the Government operating the whole of the scheme itself, it should be operated through the existing organizations, such as the friendly societies, in the field at the time, which would be responsible for seeing that their side of the scheme worked properly. This scheme has been studied by many of the countries throughout the world as one that is working efficiently. The Australian people are receiving the full benefit of' the money that is being spent. The Australian taxpayers are not being fleeced as are the taxpayers in countries where all the benefits are perfectly free. Prior to the Menzies Government coming to office, a national health scheme had been introduced in all good faith by the Chifley Government, which was the government of the day. That scheme was based, more or less, on the United Kingdom and New Zealand schemes, which provide for free medical and health benefits. It was to be financed wholly from taxation. The difference between the present scheme and the one which was introduced at that time is that the Chifley Government' health scheme would not operate, whereas, although it has taken some years to bring the present scheme into operation, it has worked well. The people of this country, by and large, are very satisfied with the health scheme that this Government has provided for them. **Senator Ashley** and "other honorable senators opposite have spoken of anomalies and have stated that malpractices have occurred. Human nature is human nature, after all. We are not living in a world of angels, but in a world with human beings, some of whom are not as particular about observing the law as are others, and, unfortunately, we find it necessary to have gaols in which to put people who break the law. The law is sometimes broken in regard to these medical benefits, and I suggest that .no one could ensure 100 per cent, regularity and 100 per cent, perfection in respect of any legislation which is introduced. But the Government has, by means of legislation, done its best to see that malpractices do not occur. Nevertheless, they have occurred, and those who have broken the law have been punished. That will continue to be the case in the future. I suggest that, instead of picking on matters of that kind, the members of the Opposition should offer helpful criticism as to' how we are to do away with such malpractices, and how we can evolve a better scheme. I wish to enumerate, for the benefit of the Opposition and the public in general, just what this Government has done, in regard to medical benefits, since it took office. To date, it has expended n total of £121,100,000 for that purpose. Chai sam has not been spent entirely on hospital and medical benefits, but an enormous amount has been spent by the Government on such benefits. When we came to office in 1949, the total amount spent on hospital benefits was £5,S44,000. The amount spent, in respect of hospital benefits alone, during the year which ended on the 30th June, 1954, was £8,279,000, and the total for the five years from the 30th June, 1950, to the 30th June, 1954, was £34,771,000. In regard to hospital benefits funds, the total amount spent in 1949 was £534,000, whereas the total amount spent during 1953-54 was £2,719,512, and the total for the five years to the 30th June, 1954, was £5,640,000. Nothing was spent in respect of medical benefits in 1949 because there was no such scheme at that time. This scheme did not come into operation until 1953, but in the first year of its operation, 1953-54, there was a total expenditure of £1,408,000 by the Commonwealth. The Medical Benefits Fund expended an additional £1,424,500. To the 31st December, 1954, expenditure from Commonwealth funds amounted to £3,266,000. and from the funds of the Medical Benefits Fund, £3,404,000. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY: -- But the Government collected more than £100,000,000 to pay for that. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- The honorable senator talks in bulk, but that is not so. He knows very well that the social services payments include far more heads than those to which I have been referring. For instance, they include age and invalid pensions, maternity allowances and payments of that kind. The honorable senator is in a jam, I know, and wishes he had not brought up this matter to-day. He is getting straight talk, common sense and the truth now. **Senator Ashley** referred earlier to the case of a single man who pays ls. 6d. a week in respect of medical benefits and ls. 6d. a week in respect of hospital benefits. I point out that if a man is paying ls. 6d. a week for hospital benefits he is paying a very high price for his hospital treatment. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- He is paying for full cover under the medical benefits scheme. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- No. For 2s. a week he can obtain full medical and hospital benefits cover, not 3s. as stated by the honorable senator. In addition to the medical and' hospital benefits afforded by this scheme, the people of Australia enjoy the benefit of free .life-saving drugs- In the year 1948-49, the total amount spent on lifesaving drugs was £149,000, whereas the total expended in 1953-54 was £8,218,000. The total expenditure during the five years which ended on the 30th June, 1954, was £25,267,000. I suggest that the benefit introduced by the Menzies Government is one of the finest to be introduced in any country of the world. It often happens that the drugs which are required to cure people who are suffering from particular diseases are very expensive. Many people have come to me and have told me that the free life-saving drugs they have received have cured them. When they have asked the cost of the drugs, in many cases it has been found to be between' £10 and £50. Tet that benefit has been granted free to all. De-' spite that, we never hear the slightest praise from the Opposition because we have done something for the sick people of Australia. The fact is that these drugs have been provided free of charge. Honorable senators opposite talked a lot about what they were going to do in regard to free medicine and drugs, but during the whole time they were in office they spent only £149,000 to provide this most important type of medicine for the people of Australia. Since we have been in office we have spent £25,267,000. I know that this is unpalatable to the Opposition, but honorable senators opposite have brought up this matter and have offered criticism. I am answering their criticism, not by criticizing them, but by showing what actually has been done by the Menzies Government in regard to the national health scheme. Much has been said in this Senate from time to time by honorable senators on the Opposition side about the age and invalid pensioners. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- I did not mention them. . {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- I did not say that they had been mentioned to-day, but that reference had been made to them from time to time. On every possible occasion, honorable senators opposite have endeavoured to prove that they are the champions of aged and invalid' persons. When we study the record of Labour governments, it is apparent that they fall far short of the achievements of this Government and previous governments of similar political persuasion in helping the pensioners. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- Could not more be done? {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- That will be considered. **Senator Ashley** cannot say with truth that we have not considered the needs of the aged, the invalid and the ex-servicemen. They have received more consideration from this Government than they ever received from a Labour government. There are 600,000 age and invalid pensioners and their dependants who are receiving free medical benefits. Those benefits do not end with a few paltry bottles of medicine and a few boxes of pills. Under this scheme, the pensioners have the full service of medical practitioners, either at the doctor's surgery or at home. Honorable senators on the Opposition side have charged medical practitioners with malpractice. There are good and bad people in every walk of life, and medical practitioners are no different in that respect, although the medical profession, as a whole, is highly respected. Its members are fully conscious of their obligations to the community. It is wrong to brand the whole medical profession as a group of persons trying to take down the Government and individuals, simply because a few are not conscious of their obligations. The fact *is* that the age and invalid pensioners have the benefit of a full medical service by qualified practitioners. Age and invalid pensioners and their dependants number more than 600,000. Since this Government was first elected to office, £6,261,000 has been expended on medical treatment for those persons, and £2,742,000 has been expended on free medicine for them. That shows that this Government has done something more than talk about health and medical benefits for pensioners. A vital need in the community has been a campaign to stamp out tuberculosis. This Government is the first that has made real headway in combating tuberculosis throughout the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- A Labour government laid the foundations of that scheme. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Maybe. **Senator Ashley** has said that a Labour government laid the foundations for a national health scheme, but it did not put that scheme into practice. I give the previous Labour Government any credit that is due to it for planning a health scheme, but it did not do anything. Tuberculosis has been attacked in Australia generally only since 1950 when this Government, was first elected to office. The campaign has been so successful that there is strong hope that tuberculosis will be eliminated entirely from Australia. The cost of that work has totalled £22,809,0001 That sum has* been expended on extra allowances: to tuberculosis sufferers undergoing treatment and to their families, on chest hospitals in the various States and on other steps to combat the disease.. {: #subdebate-13-0-s5 .speaker-JZH} ##### Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES -- I rise to order. Is the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** in order in introducing matter that has not been put forward in the motion that was moved by **Senator Ashley** The ACTING **'DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McCallum).-** Order ! The Minister is quite in. order. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Perhaps. **Senator Amour** was not. in the chamber when the motion: was submitted. It was moved so that the Senate could discuss what the mover described as " anomalies, irregularities, and injustices imposed on the taxpayers by the Menzies-Fadden, Government's national health scheme". That covers everything in the scheme. For years, honorable senators on the Opposition side have alleged that the Government was hot doing enough for the children of Australia. Probably **Senator Ashley** will claim that the Labour Government laid the foundations for the free milk scheme, but it did nothing. This Government has spent £5,500,000 in providing free milk for children throughout Australia. The result is that the children are healthier and sturdier, and there are fewer absentees from school for health reasons. I have touched upon only the borders of the health scheme, because it embraces every activity for better health. Honorable senators opposite have attacked the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited. There are 128 societies registered for hospital benefits and 79 registered for medical benefits. The Opposition has been able to attack only one of them, and then its sole criticism was that the society was too successful. People do not join a benefit society if they do not get benefits. Therefore, I claim that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited must have been a. success. It must be a good organization that, meets any legitimate claim upon it. Honorable senators opposite have suggested that the registered societies cover only certain ailments and sicknesses,, and that they do not cover pre-existent ailments. I believe that the society I have named, and other societies, recognize pre-existing ailments after a member has contributed for two years. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- They have to fulfil a membership qualification. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- We are only at the beginning of this scheme. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- The friendly societies took over those cases and paid them, benefits. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Only as an act of grace. They do not. necessarily pay aU of them. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- Never mind the act of grace. They pay the money. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- The people- are not b'ound' to join a particular medical benefits- society. They have a choice. If the Labour Government had had its way, all friendly societies would have been abolished, and there would have been only one organization. Now- there are 128 societies registered for hospital benefits and 79 registered for medical benefits. Therefore, the people have a wide choice and can choose the society that gives thembenefits best suited to their needs. The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. Iff. McMullin).-** Order! The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s6 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- During- this debate, **Senator Mattner** stated, that the previous Labour Government did not have the courage- to say how much it would take from revenue to pay for a national health, scheme. The Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** made several statements that belie the charge made by **Senator Mattner.** The Minister has shown, conclusively that the money expended by this Government has been paid out of taxes. It comes from the revenue of the Australian Government. The Minister, therefore, has answered the charge that the Labour Government wanted to. do something other than provide money from revenue. The Minister was careful to go over all the ramifications of social services benefits, but they are not necessarily health and medical benefits. He said there were- 79 registered societies in one category and 128 in another. He also said that the schemes now in operation were working efficiently and provided a wonderful service; Of course they are working well for the doctors and manufacturers of medicines. Those sections are reaping the benefit of the Government's expenditure of money. **Senator Tangney** mentioned, some of the purposes for which additional money, had been made available, supposedly for the benefit of persons entitled to the payment, but in fact the money was not received by them. It went to some specialist, or doctor, or in some instances to a hospital. The Labour Government's scheme guarded, against- that kind of. thing. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- That is why the British Medical Association boycotted it. **Senator- O'FLAHERTY.** - That is true. The British Medical Association- fought the- scheme tooth and- nail in an. effort to get complete control of the scheme. After this Government- came into power- the British. Medical Association succeeded in getting full-control: The medical benefits scheme- has become an absolute racket throughout Australia; Those- who getthe extra benefits are not the patients, but the doctors who charge extra fees. That is one of the complaints that we on this side make in submitting the motion now before the Senate. It. is a matter that should be looked' into, because- the racket should be suppressed: Every, one knows that in the past treatment in public wards of hospitals was free, but now some doctors send in accounts for attendance on patients in such wards. They are paid by the patients and also from the fund. The same thing happens in connexion with patients in intermediate wards of hospitals. As honorable senators know; these wards are frequently used as medical schools. It is said that many of these1 patients are what is known as doctors' patients. That may be true. In the past, as I have said, such, patients were not charged by the doctors for the attention given to them. They received an account from tha hospital, which might have included certain extras, but did not include payment to the doctor for his attendance. Now the doctors submit accounts to patients in these wards. If a patient can afford to pay, or if he is a member of a benefit society, he will pay the account and get a refund. That was not the position before. This matter has become a racket, and it- is another of the things that we now complain, of. The Minister referred to persons in receipt of age and invalid pensions, and also other pensions, who receive medical benefits and the services of doctors. I agree that what is done is an advance on the old system that was in operation before the present Government came into power, but throughout Australia there are approximately 200,000 persons above the pensionable age who are not entitled to one brass cent of the money that the Government is making available for either trea tment by doctors- or attention in hospital! These people cannot become members of medical benefit funds because of their age. The Minister did say that some medical benefit societies grant benefits to aged people after a period of two years. Hospital benefit funds are in a similar position; women over 60 years and men over 65 years who, for some reason, are not eligible for pensions, are also not eligible for medical benefits or for hospital benefits. The Minister has asked for suggestions from the Opposition in order to improve the scheme. At the time, I interjected, but he said that he would take no notice of my interjection. I now urge that the scheme be extended to cover these people. The extension would not cost a great deal, but to these poor people who are not eligible for pensions it would mean a great deal. In our country districts, where facilities are not available for people to join medical benefit societies, or hospital benefit societies, there are nearly 1,000,000 persons who receive no benefit at all under the Government's scheme. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator Pearson: -- What is the honorable senator talking about? {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY: -- It is easy enough to say that this is a grand scheme. I agree that up to a point it is a good scheme, but ' some of the best people in Australia are excluded from it. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator Pearson: -- Does the honorable senator say that country people are not entitled to benefits under the scheme? {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY: -- They are not entitled to benefits because the facilities are not there for them. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator Pearson: -- They are there. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY: -- They are not there. ' The honorable senator knows what happens in many country areas. {: .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator Pearson: -- I do know. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY: -- In many country districts residents band together to establish hospitals, yet when those hospitals are built, the people who provided them are charged when they go into the hospitals for treatment. I repeat that there are almost 1,000,000 people in country districts of Australia for whom medical benefits and hospital benefits are not available. In reply to the Minister's invitation for suggestions, I submit that the scheme should be extended to cover them. At the same time, the regulations could be tightened so that these benefit societies should distribute some of their large reserves to the people who need assistance. Before any medical benefits scheme came into operation in Australia the usual charge by a doctor for attending a patient in South Australia was 10s. In some States the charge might have been 12s. 6d., or 15s. There was a difference. But, to-day, medical attention costs 15s. at least. As I am over the age which entitles me to benefits under the act, I cannot participate in the scheme, but I can receive treatment for less than 15s. Why is that? It is because there is some method by which the doctors can obtain money under the scheme. It is another racket. I hope that the Minister will not be content with his statement to-day, but that he will look into some of the things that have been mentioned here by the Opposition. Particularly do I hope that he will look into the two matters to which I have referred, namely, women over 60 years of age and men over 65 years who are not entitled to any benefits from any society, and also those people living in country areas who are not receiving any benefits because facilities are not available to them. In his reference to the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis the Minister might have been fair enough to say that a plan dealing with tuberculosis was available to be put into operation when the present Government came into office, but he did not say anything about it. Indeed, he said that nothing had been done in this field until the present Government took over. He knows, or he should know, that plans were actually in operation at that time. It is true that no money had been expended for the treatment of tuberculosis, but money wa9 available for building sanatoriums by the States; the expenditure was guaranteed by the Commonwealth. Although the bills did not come in until 1950, when the present Government was in office, at the time of the change of government some of the States were building sanatoriums and making provision to deal with the tuberculosis scourge. The Minister might have given some credit to the Labour Government for the plan which it left to its successors. Money for these schemes comes from the pockets of the taxpayers. Even under a contributory scheme it is still taxation. There is no reason why the large funds that are being hoarded to-day by the benefit societies should not be expended for the benefit of the people who need it. {: #subdebate-13-0-s7 .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD:
South AusAustralia -- I have come to the conclusion that **Senator Ashley,** despite his many years of experience in the Senate, is a singularly bad tactician. I recall an occasion when he submitted a. motion for the adjournment of the Senate on the ground of the mismanagement of the coal-mining industry by the present Government. That motion turned out to be a complete flop for the Opposition and a triumph for the Government. The debate revealed that, far from there being mismanagement of the coal-mining industry, great things had been achieved by the Menzies Government.- To-day, the honorable senator has focused the attention of the Senate on what can best be described as a shining example of fine achievement by the Government; I refer to its health scheme, which was introduced by the Minister for Health **(Sir Earle Page).** I now ask the honorable senator and his colleagues whether they are willing to make this question a major election issue during the next election campaign. Will they endeavour to persuade the people to elect them to office 30 that their scheme for medical and hospital benefits may be substituted for the present scheme? I suggest that that would be a real acid test. Members of the Opposition have criticized the Government for its work in connexion with the health of the nation, but I ask them whether they will have the courage to say to the people of Australia at the next election campaign : " This scheme is no good. You are working under injustices. You are being charged for something that you are not getting. We want to substitute our nationalization scheme for the present scheme. What about it? " I know what the people's response would be. They are content with the present scheme. It is working well. They would reject emphatically any suggestion that the McKenna scheme or any other such scheme should be introduced. We know that there are some anomalies in the present scheme. But what new scheme is free of anomalies? It is inevitable that there will be some anomalies in the first few years of any big scheme; but the anomalies that have become apparent are being gradually and successfully ironed out. Compare the working of the present scheme with that of a nationalized scheme such as that foisted on the people of Australia by a Labour government. I have no doubt that the anomalies in any such scheme would be far greater than they have been in ours. We all know what happened in Great Britain and our sister Dominion of New Zealand. We know of the injustices that were perpetrated, and the rackets that grew up in those countries. Any abuses that may have occurred under our scheme are surely of relatively little importance. **Senator Benn** has made a strong attack on the medical profession. I do not say that doctors arc angels. They are human beings like ourselves, and it is only natural that they should seek to protect their interests to the best of their ability. Nevertheless I believe that the code of ethics of our medical profession is probably the highest of any profession in Australia or elsewhere. We all know of the Hippocratic Oath to which doctors have to subscribe. It is available for anyone to read. It puts the medical profession on an extremely high plane. There may be black sheep in that profession who abuse their privileges, but, by and large, doctors throughout the Commonwealth have rendered, and I am sure will continue to render, extremely good service to the community in the field of public health. In the final analysis, the acid test is that this Government's national health scheme works, whereas Labour's scheme did not work. Honorable senators opposite claim that their scheme did not work because it was not supported by doctors, chemists and others engaged in the provision of health and medical services. But how could anyone expect such a scheme to work when the government that sought to introduce it was not prepared to co-operate with those members of the community who were to provide the essential services? Obviously, if members of the medical profession could see that they were to be restricted in their work of caring for the sick, they would resist the government's proposals with all their might. And I do not blame them. Labour's health scheme would have been a poor substitute for the services the community was then receiving and which it has received since. I pay a tribute to the Minister for Health **(Sir Earle Page)** for his work. He may have his faults, because he, too, is only human. But he is a man of considerable experience in medical affairs, and over the years, he. has established an enviable record of public service. He is the man who could well be entrusted to establish a national health service that would benefit the entire community, and I believe he has succeeded in reaching that objective. The success of the health insurance scheme now in operation is evidence of that. I am sure that the people of Australia, too, will pay a warm tribute to the Minister for his work in that field. The national health scheme has wide ramifications and we know the difficulties that had to be surmountedbefore it could operate effectively. **Senator Pearson** touched upon the subject of hospital finances. Any one *who* has given this matter close consideration must, in all fairness, reorganize the fact that hospitals to-day are in a much better position financially than they have ever been and that, therefore, they can much more effectively provide health services to the community than they could under the previous Government's administration. New hospitals are being built, and existing ones extended. That has been made possible by the improved finances of hospitals generally. The national health scheme is, of course, judged by the individual from his own particular standpoint, and it is with the point of view of the individual member of the community that I wish to deal particularly to-day. Anybody who is listening to this broadcast will have heard the arguments for and against the national health scheme, and each listener will be saying to himself, " How does this scheme affect me? How do I contribute to it? 'Am I receiving any benefit from it? Is it in my ultimate interest to continue to support the scheme ?" The first answer is that when a person becomes sick and has to receive hospital treatment, if he is a member of a hospital fund he will receive, not the 8s. a day that was provided under Labour's scheme, but 12s. a day while he is in hospital. In addition, he will receive from the organization of which he is a member a payment which will go a long way towards meeting his hospital bill. I am sure that, in the final analysis, most members of the community will realize that a certain degree of self-help is desirable, and that, therefore, the hospital benefits scheme is sound in that respect. The same may be said of medical benefits. The organizations which are providing hospital and medical benefits to the community include the great friendly societies which have been operating for many years in Australia. They have done a very fine job. No one will complain about their activities prior to the introduction of the Government's health scheme. They were recognized as being excellent institutions which provided a very necessary stimulus to selfhelp. I subscribe, on behalf of myself and my family, for both medical and hospital benefits. I look upon it as good business to do so. If a member of my family falls ill, I have no hesitation whatever in calling a doctor. A substantial portion of the doctor's fee is refunded by the organization of which I am a member. The effect of the scheme is that the cost of sickness is averaged out over the community. The healthy help to pay for the medical expenses of the sick. It is an ideal form of insurance, and I have no complaint whatever to make about the scheme. It is being implemented not only by benefit organizations that have been in existence for many years, but also by societies which have been formed for that specific purpose. Taken by and large, the Government's health scheme is good.There is no need for me to cover all its ramifications. The Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** mentioned the provision of free medical treatment for pensioners. Strictly speaking, that is a social service, but nevertheless it is a valuablehealth service to the community. Who .will deny the value of the benefits that are accruing to the people of Australia from the provision of free life-saving drugs? This service is making a wonderful contribution to the health of the people. Any "one who knows the suffering that had to be endured by a person who contracted pneumonia in the old days will appreciate the value of the drugs that are now used to counteract this ailment. They are available free of charge. The medical profession has established its own policing committee to make sure that the dispensing of life-saving drugs shall not become a racket. The result is that this important part of our national health service is now functioning to the satisfaction of the Minister and of the people of Australia. The 'formulary of life-saving drugs is adequate. The Labour Government had a formulary as long as one's arm, and the provision of .all those drugs free of charge would have cost many millions of pounds. As I have . said, the present formulary is adequate, but it is being constantly revised as new discoveries add to the list of lifesaving drugs. I am sure that members of the public who have been listening to this debate will have come to the conclusion that the charges made by **Senator Ashley** are either completely without foundation, or have very little substance indeed. The Labour Government failed miserably to put its health scheme into operation, whereas this Government's scheme is now conferring immense 'benefits: on the people of Australia. I am sure /that, as .time goes on, we shall .be able to add to those bene.fits, because, in spite of the allegations that **.Senator Ashley** and 'his supporters have made .about the reserves that benefit organizations have been able to build up, those reserves will be available to meet any national health calamity or other emergency that may arise. The benefit organizations must be strong if they are to be .able .to withstand extraordinary demands that may be made upon their funds. The money is not going into the pockets .of doctors as has been alleged. That* cannot be .done under our national health scheme. I am .sure that most doctors *are actuated by .the. highest ideals and, genuinely wish to assist the Minister. Clearly, .they must have given the Minis ter ,the .greatest possible assistance, otherwise this scheme could .have never been brought into operation. I am certain that the scheme is finding favour in the community generally, and that it will .not be forgotten for many years to come. Debate interrupted under Standing Order-64. {: .page-start } page 101 {:#debate-14} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion ("by **Senator MCKENNA)** *by have* - agreed to - >That leave of absence for six months be granted to **Senator Brown** on account of absence overseas. {: .page-start } page 101 {:#debate-15} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-15-0} #### FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE Debate resumed from the 27th April *(.vide* page 71), on motion by **Senator O'sullivan** - >That 'the following paper be printed: - > >Foreign Affairs and Defence - .Statement made by the Right Honorable the Prime Minister, in the House of Representatives on the 20th April, 1955. {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator KENDALL:
Queensland -- When the Senate adjourned last night, I had spoken for only a few minutes on the subject, without notes, and therefore it might, perhaps, be better if I recommence. .Otherwise, .my speech may appear to listeners to the broadcast of these proceedings somewhat disjointed. I .had outlined something of the history of the region of the present Federated Malay States. I did not .go back to the days of .the .old East India Company, but commenced with 187.4, when four of the southern States .in Malaya asked the British Government !for its protection. Then, about nine years later, in 1885, . Johor, the most .southern of the Malay States, .also made a similar request. Still.later, in.1909, ,the four States to .the north of the Malay Peninsula, known . as the uni federated Malay States, which up to that time had been under the protection of ..Siam, which is now, .of course, Thailand, also petitioned Great -Britain :to .be allowed to join the federation. I might .say in passing, for the information of those who do .not know the geography of that: region .very 'well, that-. the Federated Malay States lie.below a line drawn from Penang Island, or the Prince of Wales Island, to Kota Bharu. The remainder of the isthmus comes under Thailand. Up to the time of World War II., of all the peoples in the East I would say that the Malays were the one people who. not only respected Great Britain and the British authorities in general, but also had a genuine affection for Great Britain. I can speak from personal knowledge over a number of years in the Far East. I think it was a very great pity that we were so unprepared and so heavily overtaxed on the other side of the world that we were unable properly to protect Malaya. The Japanese invasion left an unfortunate legacy in its train, inasmuch as some of that affection has gone. Nevertheless, after the war, Great Britain attempted to resume its protection. In 1946, the then Government of Great Britain passed the act that set up the Malayan Union. This act proved to be completely unacceptable to the Malayan peoples and," after eighteen months of conferences, the British Government, which incidentally had changed in the interim - not that that matters a great deal - inaugurated what has come to be known as the Federation of the Malay States, or the Federation of Malaya. I pointed out last night that there was set up in Malaya a federal system similar to the one in Australia. There was established a legislative council in each of the nine States, and in addition, there was established a Federal Legislative Council, composed of fourteen official members and fifty unofficial or elected members. This shows that many of the remarks that are being made in the press and by members of Parliament to-day are not in accordance with fact. When various people have said that the Malays themselves have no say in the government of their country, that is quite wrong, because it is obvious the fifty elected and unofficial members could easily outweigh the votes of the fourteen nominated members. This Federal Legislative Council carries out functions similar to those of our own Federal Government, such as formulating the external and defence policies of the country, providing postal and telegraphic facilities, and other things of a truly federal character. The object of Great Britain, and, indeed, of the Malayan peoples themselves, is eventual self-government, which is expected to be granted in four or five years' time. It was recently stated op behalf of the British Government tun, Singapore, also, would have self-government in about four years' time. In order to bring this about, it is quite obvious that the Malayan people have had to be trained and helped along the road towards the goal of eventual self-government in the same way - although the task is not quite so difficult - as the peoples of New Guinea and Papua. The Malayans are a more advanced people than those in New Guinea and Papua, and have a much longer background of civilization and knowledge. What is the record of the British Government up to date? I should like honorable senators to bear in mind the size of Malaya, which, is only, roughly, twice the size of Tasmania, or about the size of England. That is worth bearing in mind, because I have this morning taken out various figures for comparison. .1. should also like honorable senators to bear in mind the mixed population that we have to deal with in the Federated Malay States. As I said last night, the population of the federation comprises about 2,500,000 Malays, 2,000,000 Chinese, 500,000 Indians and only 10,000 Europeans. That is an awkward kind of population with which to deal - certainly not the sort of population that we are used to dealing with here.- Yet, with that population, we seem to have done what I consider to be quite a number of very good things. On the educational side, Australia has 9,700 schools, including private and public schools, compared with 4,300 in Malaya. Bearing in mind that the population of Malaya is approximately 5,000,000 people, compared with Australia's population of about 9,000,000, it will be seen that, as far as schools are concerned, they are doing very well indeed. They have smaller classes than we have in the vast majority of our schools. There are 35,500 teachers in Australia, compared with 23,000 in Malaya, so that more individual attention is possible in Malaya than in many of the schools - either city or country - in Australia. In many of our schools there are as many as 50, 60 and 70 students per class, and it is quite impossible for even first-class teachers to help each student far along the road to education. Actually, it works out at three teachers per school in Australia, compared with seven teachers per school in Malaya. On the average, there are 1,250,000 pupils all the time in Australia, compared with 750,000 pupils in Malaya. We in Australia are proud of our educational record. I often hear people telling overseas visitors what a grand system of education we have. Some go even further and say that it is one of the be3t in the world, if not the best. How much more proud must they be in Malaya of the system that has been set up by the British government to help the Malayans along the road to self-government? In Malaya, there are five large post-primary schools, a professional school in Kuala Lumpur, an agricultural college in Serdang, a teachers' training college in Perak and a women's training college in Malacca. In addition, there are open and closed scholarships, tenable at Oxford, Cambridge and London universities. Education is one of the preliminary aids that we can give to a nation that we are trying to bring to self-government; it is of the first importance. In that respect, the record of Great Britain in Malaya has been magnificent. On the health side, there are at present 72 government hospitals in Malaya, which are well built, well staffed, and well supplied with things that are required in hospitals. There is a very large institute of medical research, a little outside Kuala Lumpur, where quite a lot of research is carried out in connexion with tropical medicines and diseases, and the sort of things that might, be expected to be done in such a country. Coming now to roads, railways and transport in general, I should like the Senate to compare the accomplishments in M'alaya with those of Tasmania, which is of comparable size. As I said before, Malaya is about twice the size of Tasmania. Yet, whereas Tasmania has 2,000. miles of road, Malaya has 6,000 miles, two-thirds of which are sealed. Tasmania has 613 miles of railways, whilst Malaya has 1,143 miles. Malaya has eight modern aerodromes. I do not think that any one in this chamber would say that Tasmania was a backward State, but Malaya has even better transport facilities than Tasmania. So far as transport is concerned, British control in Malaya is nothing to be ashamed of. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- What about shipping? {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator KENDALL: -- There are three shipping lines in Malaya. One is run by a firm which is known' as Apkars Limited, which operates coastal vessels. Then there is the Straits Settlement Line, which is closely connected with the Blue Funnel line. In addition, there is a mim bor of small coastal vessels which are owned by local people. A few ships run to Sarawak and there is the constant coming and going of ships between Malaya and the Far East. Malaya is far better served with shipping than Tasmania is likely to be served within the next twenty years. Up to 1949, Malaya had continual budget deficits. But, since the reorganization which occurred with the establishment of the new federation in 194S, the country has balanced its budgets. Malaya receives 23 per cent, of its imports from the United Kingdom, but only 20 per cent, of its exports go to the United Kingdom. Those figures rather upset the silly story that the United Kingdom is exploiting Malaya. The fact that only one-fifth of the exports go to the United Kingdom does not support the silly stories which appear in the press, and which are heard in this Parliament, concerning exploitation and colonization. During the last four years, the United Kingdom has spent on defence in Malaya more than the total amount of the Malayan budget for each year. That expenditure does not come from, and has no bearing on, the budget of Malaya. The money is provided by the United Kingdom, the country that is doing its best to bring Malayans to selfgovernment. The United Kingdom is trying to stop the bandits from killing people and ruining plantations. Whilst most of the defence work- in Malaya is being done by- British troops and British aircraft1, the -Malayans have- not been slow in- producing forces to try to- assist in* combating the bandits: A't present the Malay regiment has six- battalions and there- is another battalion in the newly-formed Federation Regiment. The Malayans are working shoulder to shoulder with their British comrades in trying to chase the bandits out of Malaya. These are the people- whom we are going to- help with. Australian troops. Surely it is not true to say that our troops are going, to Malaya uninvited in order to invade' that country against the people's- will. One receives the impresison that some of those who make such remarks are either so ignorant that they should not be in Parliament or else they are deliberately telling lies. To me, it is obvious that our forces are not going into Malaya to fight against the people. We are going there at their request. East night, the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna)** asked why Australian troops were going to Malaya. He asked whether they had been invited there. The Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** has since told me that discussions have been going on. between the United Kingdom, Malaya and Australia on this matter for the last eighteen months. The recent decision of the Government to send troops, to assist the United Kingdom forces has resulted from these eighteen months of discussion. The United Kingdom has a number of problems on its hands, and if Australia were to sit. quietly back and let the present banditry go on until it became real warfare, large numbers of Chinese would eventually be sent down in order to assist the bandits. I call them bandits for want of a better, word! Some people call them Communists, and some, rebels. If the Chinese were to invade Malaya in greatnumbers, I think that Malaya would become merely another province of China as the northern part of Korea and the northern part of Indo-China have become. In view of Australia's geographical position, surely it is advisable for us to send troops to Malaya in order to help the Malayans' to achieve self-government so that' we shall have a peaceful nation at our doorstep. Leaving Malaya for the- moment, I notice that the Leader of the' Opposition in> another place' **(Dr. Evatt')'-** suggested yesterday that it would be just as sensible for the Chinese to come down- and have their front, line in Indonesia as it' would be for us;to send' troops -to Malaya: {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- He. did not. say that. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator KENDALL: -- That is the way in which he was reported. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- H'e asked what people would say if they did that. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator KENDALL: -- I. should say that there was no analogy. The two positions, would be completely, different. There is nothing whatever to do with China in Indonesia. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- They think that there is. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator KENDALL: -- Indonesia is completely free and has nothing to do with China. Malaya, on the other hand, is part and parcel of the British Commonwealth of Nations. **Senator McKenna** and **Senator O'Flaherty** tried to attach blame to the Australian Government for three reasons. They said that all the nations of the world should be in the United Nations organization. I agree. But. it is of no use trying, to attach blame to Australia because that has not. come about. Australia has not stopped nations from joining the United Nations organization. On two occasions, discussion on the admittance of other States to the United Nations organization has- been initiated in the United Nations Organization by Australia. It is other nations in the United Nations organization that have stopped certain countries from- joining. Another circumstance for- which the- Australian Government has been blamed is the useof the veto: Such action has nothing to do with Australia. If is Russia, China. England, America or France which decide whether they will' use the veto or not. Russia has exercised a decisive influence in. many arguments by its use. of the. veto. **Senator- McKenna** and' **Senator O'Flaherty** also said that the representatives of the five big- powers have not met for a number of years. It is ridiculous to' blame Australia- for that. Surely it is the. responsibility of the big powers to get .together. Their failure :to -meet has not been .due to lack .of .effort -on .the part of the United Kingdom, which has .made many overtures in order to try to get .the five big powers together .at a conference table. .About five years ago a meeting of foreign ministers was held, but the Prime Ministers - or dictators of the countries concerned have not met. I am greatly heartened by press reports that Chou Enlai's suggestion that America and China should confer .has been seriously considered and that the United States of America is keen to talk to -the Prime Minister of free, or red, China on the highest possible level. Now, Chiang Kaishek will not come to the .conference table, In those circumstances, at least the United States and China and the United Kingdom should meet. If Chiang Kai-shek will not attend the conference, perhaps they could send the findings along to him. after the conference' has been held. *1* do not know. But there is room for optimism in the fact that there is likely to be a conference between, f free .China and the United States. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** in the course of his recent speech in another place, expressed the position in far better words than I could hope to use. Mc said - ff we were proposing to invade a hostile Malaya in order to fasten upon it some new control of our own, the people of Malaya might well say that they had no particular preference for one tyranny over another. But we are not forcing ourselves upon Malaya. The Malayan community knows perfectly well that it has, at this very moment, the protection of British arms. As I have already said, it -was a most unhappy occurrence that when the Japanese came. south in 1942, :the United Kingdom was so embroiled 'in other theatres of war that it was impossible for it to give .the protection to Malaya that it had promised. I -do not want to see that happen .again. I am .pleased tha t the 'Government has decided to send troops -from Australia to assist the British Government, and I am also pleased that we are going to have two divisions within Australia which could he used .if > anything like that -happened again. A lot of nonsense has been talked about conscription. For instance, **"Senator ©'Flaherty,** who followed **Senator McCallum** last night, on four or .five occasions accused the Government and **Senator McCallum** of suggesting conscription. There is no question of conscription. These units which are to be formed in Australia will be formed in the same way as all the other divisions have been formed - not by conscription, but by voluntary enlistment. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- The honorable senator is a little optimistic. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator KENDALL: -- I do not 'think so. The other point in the Prime Minister's speech which struck me as being worth repeating was that the people of Malaya will welcome such military arrangements as will help to preserve their present and future freedom. The Prime Minister has stated that it so happens that the interests of Malaya and those of Australia on this point completely coincide. It is in our interests to have a peaceful Malaya, with self-government, in exactly the same way as our interests lie in having a .peaceful and selfgoverning New Guinea and Papua, with peoples who are ready to join the Commonwealth of Nations and to be our friends. I wish to repeat what I have said already, that before the 1939-45 war the people of Malaya not only had respect for Great Britain and the British people in .general, but -they also had affection for us. I speak with some authority on this matter. They were the one people in South-East Asia who had such affection, and .1 .hope .that by acting in the way that we now .propose - by sending troops to assist them and setting out to stop this banditry and lawlessness which are going on .at the [present time - we may some day wipe out the remembrance of our unpreparedness in 19.42, when 'the Japanese came down. I hope that by that means we may again .earn .that affection which we enjoyed before. T think -it is -coming back. We have in Brisbane a small body known as the Oriental Language 'Society. Tt meets 1 twice a month, and all 'the boys -from the .university who comedown under the Colombo plan, ' and others, :such .as Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis -and "Malays, come -along. (Frequently, -we "have ;T0 or 80 people at our meetings. We may have a little play-acting, done in the language of their countries, such as in Malay, Hindustani or Chinese, with some explanations for the benefit of the people who are trying to learn those languages. We may also have a little music, a cup of tea and a bun, and then a talk. I am quite sure from my experience of those gatherings, which I have been attending for more than four years, that the affection of which I spoke, as far as Malaya is concerned, is coming back. I think that Australia stands pretty highly with the other nations as well. I hope that the present Government's idea will be taken up by the next government, whenever there happens to be *a* change of government in this country. I dare say that, by the time that happens, enough years will have elapsed for the present Opposition to have realized that what the Government is doing to-day is the right thing to do. {: #subdebate-15-0-s1 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland .- I noticed that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** when making his statement on foreign affairs, referred to the countries which he visited during the early part of this year. We know that the Prime Minister was overseas for quite a while during the early part of the year, and that during the period of his absence he was able to visit seven European countries and two Asiatic countries. I have no doubt that when he visited the European countries he learned something of the probabilities of the next war, and that when he went to the Asiatic countries some suspicions that he may have had in respect of another war being commenced some time in the near future were confirmed. Consequently, his statement dealt more particularly with South-East Asia than with any other portion of the world. I do not subscribe for a moment to a rumour that was widespread. in Brisbane, that the Prime Minister and his staff flew from London to Holland only for the purpose of obtaining two dozen selected gladioli bulbs. I think he had other business to deal with in that locality. I also noticed that while the Prime Minister was abroad five members of his Cabinet were also absent overseas. We dealt with a nationality and citizenship bill during the week, and the probability is that we shall be able to use the provisions of that legislation later on for the purpose of granting naturalization certificates to some members of the Cabinet when they return from overseas. I suggest that they do not require passports at all. What they really require are naturalization certificates. The Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** was absent in South-East Asia at the same time as the Prime Minister was visiting European countries. Perhaps there are many people in Australia who. if afforded the opportunity to select a Minister for External Affairs, would select the present Minister, a gentleman who has some capacity and some experience of Asian administration, a man on whom I think we can rely to carry out the duties of his office in a very dignified way. After he went overseas, most people were expecting reports in the press concerning the contacts that he had made and the conferences he had attended in some of the countries he visited, such as Burma. Indo-China and Indonesia, because even at that time the conference which has just concluded in South-East Asia, between representatives of the Asians and Africans, was mooted. I thought that he was over there to do some preliminary organizing work in connexion with that conference, and I was watching the newspapers for reports. We are all interested in South-East Asia at the present time. However, I was rather shocked at the news that came back. I learned from the press that the Minister for External Affairs had attended an oriental banquet in Cambodia, at which the King of Cambodia was present. The report did not say how the Minister was dressed. Perhaps he wore a barong tagalog, as he was supposed to have worn on another occasion. However, the banquet was described in the press, and it was stated that Cambodian girls between the ages of sixteen and twenty, in cloth of gold dresses, which were cut so close that they had to be sewn on their bodies, danced before our dignified Minister for External Affairs, no doubt kicking up their lees and showing him how the dances are performed in Cambodia. The music was also described. The instruments included tom-toms and tongs, whatever they are in the musical world, in addition to xylophones and various other things. I have no doubt that it was a good performance. It is not clear what the Minister did after the banquet. The report did not say whether he went to bed immediately or whether he went to look for some night life in Cambodia. This report appeared in the press of Australia, which we expect to supply us with substantial information. This was the news that came back when the Minister for External Affairs visited South-East Asia. I do not know what happened, but the next news I heard of the Minister was that he was suffering from dysentery. I suggest that there is a big gulf between watching dusky dancers in Cambodia and suffering from dysentery. There is an old saying which is applied to the case of a man who meets failure after having been winning his way in the world. It is said that he cannot stand corn. Evidently this party was too much for the Minister for External Affairs. He could not stand corn, and he suffered in consequence. When the Minister went overseas, I thought to myself, " It will not be very long now before conferences are held in South-East Asia and we will be getting news concerning the drift of foreign affairs in that area ". I waited for a week or two, and the next news I heard of the Minister was that he had washed his hands in eau-de-Cologne. One newspaper even went so far as to explain that he had had a bath in eau-de-Cologne. I have been in various States of the Commonwealth and I have seen men do many kinds of work and engage in many activities, but I have never known one of them to be compelled to wash his hands in eau-de-Cologne. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP -- The honorable senator's mind ought to be washed in cau-de-Cologne. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- It all depends on what we think. To the pure, all things are pure. When we are dealing with foreign affairs, certain things are called to mind. When we are formulating foreign affairs policy, we have to think of certain facts or things which appear before us as facts. For instance, when a foreign policy is being prepared, it is necessary to consider developments in other parts of the world and also to take into consideration the action taken by other countries in certain circumstances. Every one appreciates that it is a difficult thing to formulate a foreign policy which will last for an appreciable length of time. We can only follow, as a nation, certain principles which we hope will carry us through. Why, at the present time, are we giving such thought to South-East Asian countries? Only a few years ago it was quite unnecessary for us even to think of those countries when we were dealing with international affairs. We say at this very moment that we do not fear aggression from any particular country in South-East Asia, excluding one or two, perhaps. Taking those which have a population of less than that of Indonesia, we do not really expect any attack from those countries. It is doubtful whether countries such as Indonesia, Indo-China, Thailand, the Philippines and Burma could wage a war on their own at the present time. Their war potential is so meagre that it could be classed as negligible. Therefore, why are we giving any consideration at all to that part of the globe when we are discussing foreign affairs? We have to take into consideration certain developments and facts, and there can be no doubt that China could become the counterpart in Asia of Russia in Europe. If I were to ask honorable senators in what year the Russian Revolution began, they would say that it broke out in 1917. If I asked how many countries had been embraced in the fold of atheistic communism since 1917, I would be told that in Europe, they number nine or ten. If I asked whether any country that had fallen into the hands of Soviet Communism had ever been freed, the answer would be in the negative. That is all on one side of the world. On the other side there is China. We expect the same principles to be followed by China in Asia as those that were followed by Russia in Europe. The Korean war which was started in 1950 was concluded last year by an armistice. Perhaps it dragged on unnecessarily. 2To sooner had active warfare in Korea ceased than another war broke out in Indo-China. The IndoChina forces could not withstand those that opposed them in that war. Now there is . a degree of peace, and we1 are justified in concentrating upon the SouthEast Asian, countries. What has happened in Europe since 1917 could happen in Asia within the next ten or fifteen years, or perhaps a" shorter, period; for' reasons that I shall) review. Honorable, senators are discussing foreign policy. They know how it is formed and why; We may ask ourselves, " What is the foreign policy of China? " It has not been declared, but we do know the foreign policy of Russia. That has been stated! and it is an old one. Stalin outlined the foreign policy of Russia asfollows: - >The tasks of thu Party in foreign policy are2 - (]') To utilize every contradiction and conflict among- the surroundingcapitalist, groups and' governments for. the purpose of disintegrating. Imperialism. > >To. spare no pains or means lo assist, the proletarian revolutions in the West. > >To- take all necessary measures to strengthen' the national revolution movement, in the. East.. > >To. strengthen the Red Army. What does it mean? The first- declared objective of that policy indicates that thecountries outside the: fold of communism1 must unite: As to- the second plank of Soviet Russia's f oreign policy, there have not been many revolutions in. the West. Probably there have been; a few,, and itwould be the policy of Russia to. stir up those revolutions-. The third objective of Stalin's, foreign policy was' to strengthen. the1 national liberation, movement in the East. This policy was declared some: years ago, and since then the majority of the South-East Asian countries have been granted self-government. Therefore the revolutionary movement in.- the East mentioned in . the: foreign policy outlined by Stalin. is. out of date now. The fourth objective, was- to strengthen, the red' Army, and, so far as Russia was concerned, probably that was the best thing it could do.. The: foreign policy I have outlined is the policy of' a country that' is- opposed to us ideologically. It is reasonable for us: to assume that- if: that is the-, foreign policy of ' Russia, it is also the foreign policy of red China. In-, thatsetting, we have to concern ourselves with regard.- to those, countries in South-East Asia. Our. way in Australia is. clear. We seek: to form treaties- with other, countries that are not in thu embrace of. communism at present. Close to. Australia - and this is perhaps- why we are- more, concerned about the situation than we would be- otherwise - there aif the following thickly populated countries: - I could include Singapore;, which ha? n. population, off 1,000,00.0", and if we add. the- population of. China, which totals46'4,000;00.0,. we. shall, find' that, there i* a. total- Asiatic- population,, excluding Pakistan and India, of 662,000,000. That is the group of. nations with which we are concerned at present. I have* referred- to. the self-government oft some of those countries1. We- know that, most of those countries- were pleased to be free of what they termed ""colonialism1". If mistakes- arc to be made in their countries; they prefer to make them themselves. At' present'- they, are going-- through, the worst period of their- existence because- they have not' had' an- opportunity to govern themselves- and: are forced, in thismodern world, to exercise the- same notions' of government1 as' those that we are exercising:. It is a task which they may not manage-without some assistance, because we- can. look around Australia- and see the. problems, with which the State governments are confronted. They ask for more loan money and capital for developmental works. They are seeking a policy of expansion. The Asiatic countries will have those problems also. The production of food and- clothing- will be tasks they will have to face. We ask. ourselves whether they can- undertake the task successfully. I listened recently to- an address given by an honorable senator upon the improvements that have been effected in Malaya during the past: ten years by Great Britain. According to that honorable senator, Malaya is more progressive and far more advanced than is Australia. In addition to the economic problems with which those countries will be confronted, and which they will be called upon to deal successfully, they have social problems. They have to provide medical services for their people and that will be a gigantic task. Honorable senators to-day discussed one section of Australia's medical services, and we know the problems that face the Australian Government in that- connexion. Education is a progressive matter. The countries of Asia will have to undertake an educational programme and carry it out. We might ask ourselves, in passing, why there is a Colombo plan in 1955? I f a Colombo Plan is necessary, why was not one instituted in 1900 ? If a Colombo plan had been evolved in 1900, or a century ago, we should not now be looking towards South-East Asia apprehensively. I am sure that our feeling would be quite different. The Australian. Government proposes to send token forces to Malaya, at this stage. Why? Is it not the intention to make Malaya, a buffer area or a border to which communism may extend south? Will it not be a border to which the Communist creed may extend but go no farther ? Is that not the intention ? I believe that it is. A notion is abroad now that nothing can be gained by treaties. I do not subscribe to that point of view. I believe that if we can form any organization that will allow countries to discuss their problems from time to time, those organizations are worth while. I believe the United Nations organization will do much good in. the future. It has been worth while in the past, and it will fully justify its existence in the future. In conclusion I wish to. refer to atomic warfare. Professors and others who have dealt with the hydrogen bomb and who know anything- about it have expressed their horror at even the contemplated use of the hydrogen bomb in warfare or for any purpose for human destruction hut let us be realistic about the hydrogen bomb. We have in the world two sets of people. We have those who are supporting aetheistic communism and those, among whom we are included, who support Christian democracy. Each has all the knowledge it is possible to have about the use of the hydrogen bomb. There is a clash of ideologies. What will happen if open warfare ensues? It is of no use to be- complacent. The hydrogen bomb will be used by one power or another unhesitatingly when circumstance? are favorable. Those circumstances will not arise always. Distance is one factor that must be considered. What is Australia's position with regard to the use of the hydrogen bomb against this country? If Australia has no power to retaliate, it must yield immediately. If we are within bombing distance of a hostile country which is about to bomb us with the hydrogen bomb, our position will, be hopeless. It might be said that, forces could develop in some of those countries north or south of Malaya. In that case density of population would enter into consideration. The. use ofthe hydrogen bomb by Australia against some of the South-East Asian countries would be futile because we would not be injuring the people who were really conducting the war against us. Figures relating to density of population are always interesting. China has a population of 464,000,000, which works out at 123 persons to the square mile. Other densely populated countries are shown in the following table : - Australia's population averages three persons to the square mile. In conclusion, I express my earnest hope that Australia will be able to live in peace with its neighbours, the South - East Asian countries, and; indeed, all the countries of the world. It is my fervent hope that there will never be any need for any nation to take action to defend its people against a hydrogen bomb. {: #subdebate-15-0-s2 .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH:
Tasmania -- I intend to speak on this subject mainly as a soldier, and not as a politician, because I have had more experience in the former role. It is with some trepidation that I do so after the attack on regular soldiers by **Senator O'Flaherty,** who said that regular soldiers loved war, and did all they could to bring about war, because it made things better and easier for them. If the honorable senator had been shot at as much as I was shot at while I was a regular soldier, he would realize that regular soldiers hate war and try to stop wars, because they realize what war means. In saying that, I include **Senator Sandford,** who interjected, although I did not hear what he said. As to Labour's policy on this subject, the first thing I would say is that it is extremely difficult to find out what that policy is. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna).** Had I known that he was addressing the Senate I would have been here to listen to him. At the time, I was in the House of Representatives listening to the speech of his leader there. After **Dr. Evatt** had spoken, I heard another speech from a member of - 3hall we call it the other Labour party or the splinter party? The two speeches were by no means parallel; and that is putting it mildly. There is still another party, I presume, because the Premier of Tasmania, **Mr. Cosgrove,** came out openly and supported the policy of sending troops to Malaya. He did so very heartily, and congratulated the Menzies Government on deciding to do so. I do not know whether he will be punished for his speech, or what will happen to him. However, as I have said, it is difficult to know what Labour's policy on this matter is. I was not helped to come to a conclusion on the subject by the speeches of **Senator O'Flaherty** and **Senator Benn** this afternon. I could not understand what their policy was, excepting that **Senator Benn** attacked Ministers for being overseas, although they were doing their duty and attending to things that have to do with the fate of Australia. **Dr. Evatt's** policy seems to be to place implicit trust and reliance in the United Nations. Theoretically, that is good. Indeed, I hope that in the years to come the United Nations may become an effective organization. In time, it may well prove to be the salvation of the world. We ought to support the United Nations, and we on this side do so. However, up to now, that organization has been most ineffective. It has not done much to stop Communist aggression. The United Nations did not stop aggression in Malaya, where there has been aggression for a number of years. Nor did it do so in Korea, or in Indonesia, or in Formosa. I am convinced that the people of Australia would agree with me when I say that I would hate to have to rely entirely on the United Nations for Australia's protection. If we cannot rely on the United Nations, what must we do, because we must have protection? The answer is that we must protect ourselves. In this world, we cannot remain open to aggression and asking people to invade our territory. The arguments of the Labour party have been confined almost entirely to the area of South-East Asia. I can understand that, because South-East Asia is an area that greatly affects us in Australia, but I think that it is a parochial outlook. We are dealing with a world problem; foreign affairs is a subject covering the whole world, and this debate is one on foreign policy and defence. Let us, therefore, look at the world situation to-day. I propose to start with a matter touched on by **Senator Benn,** who asked, " What is the Communist objective?" He gave an answer to his question, but I shall give my answer in fewer words than the honorable senator used. I think that every honorable senator believes that the objective of the Communists is world domination. We are all agreed on that point, and Russia's actions tend to strengthen that conviction. We can take it that Russia has not changed its objectives. China is a partner of Russia ; we may say that China is a satellite of Russia. We know that many people in China are controlled in some degree by Russia, and, therefore, we can say that China has the same objective as Russia has. China has shown by its actions during the last few years what its objective is. Most of the Communist forces in Indo-China are composed of Chinese, who are either nativeborn or have entered Indo-China in recent years. That is what our military intelligence tells us is the position. The Korean war would have ended much sooner had it not been for Chinese action which prolonged hostilities. That war has not yet ended ; there is still only a truce. When the situation in Korea calmed down, there was aggression in Indo-China. Considerable success attended that aggression. That success could not have been achieved had it not been for the aid which came into IndoChina through China - aid supplied by China, and Russia. Battles fought in Indo-China. were fought with modern equipment which Indo-China itself could not have provided. Later, when things were a little more settled in Indo-China, there was aggression in the direction of Formosa by the Chinese. So far, it has been mainly threats to Formosa, but China is undoubtedly collecting large forces on its eastern border with a view to attacking the off-shore islands of Formosa. At the moment I shall .not discuss whether action to defend those islands would he right or wrong, but there is an undoubted threat to Formosa. I think we can agree that China has the same objective as that of Russia. China certainly has imperialistic ideas. If China is an ally, or a satellite of Russia, with the same objectives, there must be a threat to Australia. Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion that we must take steps to protect ourselves. Having accepted that view, there seem to be two alternatives; we can prepare to fight in Australia, or we can prepare to fight overseas. I suppose there is a third thing that we can do ; we can sit down and do nothing, but that policy will not appeal to many Australians. I do not think there is any doubt at all in the minds of ex-service men and women who served Australia well in the last war - men who had to defend their country against a threat which started much further away than this threat does because it started in Japan and reached our shores very quickly - about what we should do. Among them are, perhaps, the sons and daughters of some honorable senators present to-day. They were thankful to have islands north of Australia to help them. Even then, they did not succeed fully in stopping the threat to Australia, because, as honorable senators know, some parts of Australia were bombed by the enemy with loss of life, and J Japanese submarines even got right into Sydney Harbour. Those happenings show how close to success was the attempt of the enemy. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- At that time our defence units were in the Middle East. {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- Australian soldiers believe that the farther away from Australia we can defend our country the better. Indeed, that is plain common sense. I cannot understand anyone wanting to wait on our own shores for an enemy to land before taking steps to resist the aggressor. Why should we lay our land open to devastation and our families open to all sorts of atrocities by an enemy? Such a plan is a plan of madness. In my opinion, the present Government very wisely decided that the further away we fought, if we had to fight, the better. No *one* in Australia who has any brains can imagine that, because we decide to fight an aggressor overseas, we intend to wage a Avar of aggression or take possession of another country. All we have decided to do is to take steps to secure a base in territory which at present is a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- How does the honorable senator know that an enemy will get that far? {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- Speaking as a soldier, I ask what are the advantages or disadvantages of the action decided upon? **Dr. Evatt,** in his speech in the House of Representatives, mentioned one disadvantage according to his view. He said that a base far removed from Australia would be, as it were, out ou a limb, because of its isolation and liability to successful attack by an enemy. All we are doing is to strengthen a base which has already been established by Britain. In other words, we are continuing to help the Mother Country. What are the advantages of having a base there ? The advantages are very apparent. IfFormosa falls and Communist Russia and Communist China wish to continue theiradvance where arethey likely to go? There aretwo directions in which they can go. One is west through Siam, Burma, India andPakistan, and the other is south through Indonesia. Their easiest course would be to go south.If we have a base in Malaya, it will be of tremendous assistance in such circumstances. It will threaten the lines of communication of a force moving west or south and that, from the military point of view would be a great advantage to us. That was why we fortified Singapore prior to World War II. The reason why Singapore fell is a different matter. We can learn from our past mistakes. There are many advantages in having a base in Malaya, and I am sure those advantages far outweigh any disadvantages that **Dr. Evatt** may see in this proposal. The right honorable gentleman asks what the Asiatics will think about Australia establishing a base thousands of miles to the north of its shores. I say that we are not establishing but strengthening a base on British territory, and that we are fully entitled to do that. The right honorable member claimed also that other countries had not done this. That is too ridiculous for words. Surely he is aware that Russia has established a strong submarine base on Hainan Island, just off the coast of Indo-China, and that that base is manned by Russians. Hainan Island is thousands of miles : from Russian territory, and there is no excuse for the establishment of a Russian base there. I remind the Senate, that, not long ago, a British passenger aircraft, which had strayed slightly off itscourse, was shot down by Russian fighters in the vicinity of Hainan Island. That aircraft was shot down because the Russians were afraid that we might learn something of what is being done on the island. Itake it that **Dr. Evatt** does not believe in establishing overseas basesof any kind, because he was a member of a government which, a few years ago relinquished one of the best bases in the world,Manus Island. That base might very easily have played an important part in our defence in anyfuture war. Since this Government came into office, it has had tospend many millionsof pounds on the restoration of Manus Island, butthat base is nothinglike what it would have been if the (LabourGovernment had not refused to take it overfrom America. {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator Sandford: -- To whom was it handed over ? {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- It was handed over to Chiang-Kai-shek by the Americans because Australia had refused it. {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator Sandford: -- It was handed over to America. {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- No. It was an American base. America established it at a cost of £100,000,000 and offered itto us for £6,000,000, but we refused it. Ask **Senator Benn** about Manus Island. He went with me to Manus Island, : and he knows its history. The main objection that has been raised by **Dr. Evatt** and his supporters is to the sending of troops to Malaya. When I say " troops " I mean one battalion. Whena bomber squadron or two was sent to Malaya not long ago, there was no outcry from the Labour party. But protests are being made now because we are sending a mixed force there. Apparently honorable senators opposite do not object to air and naval forces being sent overseas, but they object to the inclusion of ground forces. Has the Labour party any objection to the presence of British troops in Malaya? Would honorable senators opposite ask the United Kingdom Government to withdraw its troops ? If not, why does the Labour party objectto one miserable battalionbeing sent from Australia to Malaya? SenatorGrant. - Why bother to send it at all if it is only , a " miserable " battalion ? {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- We are to send a combined force. TheOpposition does not object to naval or air forces going to Malaya, but it doesobject to the inclusion of ground forces. A combined force is the obvious force to send. What would happen in Malaya if the British troops were withdrawn? The country would be handed overto the Communists, and that is the last thing that thepeople of Malayawant. Whatforces do weintend to send to Malaya? They will include twodestroyers, andanaircraft carrier will pay visits now .and again. There "will also be one army battalion, one fighter wing and two bomber squadrons, as well as an air-field construction force. This is normal military procedure. .If land forces were not included, anything -could happen. An air force on the .ground is vulnerable. If anything happened to our air .forces in Malaya because of the lack of ground defences, this Government would be torn to shreds. The inclusion of land forces, therefore, is an ordinary military precaution. A battalion of infantry is essential for the protection of the air force on the ground. In all probability that is why the battalion has been included. It is the obvious thing to do. The .ground forces may quite possibly take part in action against the terrorists. I hope they do because, if I were a man serving in that battalion I am sure I should enjoy the experience of going out and doing a bit of work instead of sitting down guarding an aerodrome or some other area. I am sure such experience would be good for the training of both officers and men. The presence of an Australian .battalion will enable a British battalion to be rested. The proposal has many good points. I cannot for the life of me see any objection to the sending of one miserable battalion. Labour's view apparently is that the presence of Australian troops in Malaya will be an indication that we are helping Great Britain to delay the .granting of independence to that country. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- So it will, indirectly. {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- I have never heard anything so silly in my life. One battalion will not make any difference. Great Britain has promised independence ito Malaya. It is Britain's responsibility to give independence. However, it is "very questionable whether Malaya really wants -independence at present. A large .proportion of the population do not .want independence. They say that .they would like to have independence in a .'few years after the present emergency has passed and the-Communist threat is under control, but I doubt whether one-quarter of the people .of Malaya want independence now. {: .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator Hendrickson: -- And the 'ones who want it .now are -called " commos " by honorable .senators .opposite. {: .speaker-KBU} ##### Senator WORDSWORTH: -- T-hat is too .ridiculous for words, and io one will believe it. It is clear, however, that the element that is causing the disturbance at present is the Communist element. When one reads the list of casualties that have been inflicted on the civilian population of Malaya, one ^realizes that this is .not a fight .by the Malayan people for independence. Chinese civilians billed number 1,718. The death-roll also includes 315 Malayans, 220 Indians and 103 Europeans. In addition, 739 people have been abducted, and 1,324 wounded, making a total of 4,423 casualties in the civilian population in Malaya. This is not a fight .for independence. It is an attempt bv the Communists to create a state of anarchy and to prevent independence being granted to Malaya. We are sending troops to Malaya for two reasons. The first is to help Great Britain to discharge its responsibility in that part of the world. Britain has three divisions of regular .troops there, and we are to send only one miserable battalion, or approximately one-thirtieth of Britain's fighting force. In other words, Britain is doing 30 times more than we are 'to defend Malaya. Secondly, we are sending forces to Malaya to assist our own defences. In the past we on this side of the chamber have been criticized by Labour supporters for having followed the American line too closely and neglected British interests. Now we are told that we are doing .too much for Britain. It is indeed difficult to understand Labour's policy. In -the few minutes -that I have left to me I propose to summarize what I have said. We are sending "troops overseas first because we as a nation are at last facing up to our obligations and responsibilities. We are one nation in a *bloc* of nations .making -up the free world which has decided that, to be. strong .and to be prepared is .the .best way to secure peace. Secondly, as we cannot depend on the United Nations to .defend us, we must defend ourselves against the evident threat from a *bloc* -of aggressive Communists, led by Russia. Thirdly, the best way to defend ourselves is to co-operate with other .great, and.strong nations which think ..and act as .we .do. Fourthly, it is better .to fight outside eather :.than 'inside Australia. Therefore, we are helping to strengthen a base in the best available position. I support the Government's policy with all my strength; *Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.* {: #subdebate-15-0-s3 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
Victoria -- When the late Right Honorable William Morris Hughes was in Brisbane on the 24th July, 1936, he was reported to have made this very pertinent statement - >The increasing intensity of competition for economic markets must lead to armed conflict unless an economic settlement is found. Talk about peace in a world armed to the teeth is utterly futile. As we all know, what was then predicted actually came about in 1939. The- right honorable gentleman emphasized that when there is economic conflict there will also be armed conflict. That is the situation with which we are faced to-day. **Mr. Hughes** was right; preparation for war is a challenge for war, and always has been. It is only a question of when and where the war will begin. We have been told that it is proposed to send troops to Malaya for the purpose of establishing and maintaining peace. I suggest that that is just so much wishful thinking. Such an approach to the situation by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** is wholly subjective, not objective. Of course, this is nothing new as far as he is concerned, because the Menzies Government was returned to office in 1949, and the following paragraph appeared in the Melbourne *Sun* of the 23rd September, 1950:- {: .page-start } page 114 {:#debate-16} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-16-0} #### MENZIES: ARMY WILL FIGHT " ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD He has lived up to that. Referring to conscription for overseas service the report stated - >The Government is anxious to avoid a bitter controversy on conscription, but it may be necessary later to amend the Defence Act to extend the areas of compulsory service. The Prime Minister implied in 1950 that he intended to enforce conscription for service overseas if possible, despite the fact that referenda conducted on two occasions to test that proposition were deservedly defeated. What have we to gain by fighting in Malaya? The Prime Minister, in his speech on the 20th April stated, amongst other things - >It is, therefore, desirable that I should say at once that commitments of this kind are just as much in the interests of Malaya as they are in the interests of Australia. He did not state the position exactly and precisely, but just assumed that that was so. What is the position in Malaya? If that country were an arid desert, there would be no suggestion about sending Australian troops there. But Malaya is an enormously wealthy country, only one-fifth of which, according to reports, has been cultivated? What are they fighting for in Malaya at present? Are they fighting for England or the United States of America? Certainly not ! They are fighting to protect the interests of the shareholders of companies which are trading in *the* name of the nation. The impression has been created deliberately that they are fighting for England, for the United States, and for Australia - but that is not so. The profits of companies operating on British, American, and possibly Australian capital go into private coffers. What the Government is really saying to the people is that it wants to send troops to Malaya to protect private property and make possible a continuation of private profits. Many prominent men have subscribed to this opinion. For example, during World War I., Marshal Foch, the French Army leader, was reported by the *United Services* Magazine, London, in December, 1918, to have stated - >What do we all seek? New outlets for ever-increasing commerce and for industries, which, producing far more than they can consume or sell, are constantly hampered by an increasing competition. And then? Why! New areas for trade are cleared by cannon shot. Again, in October, 1922, the London *Star* attributed the following statement to Marshal. Lyantey, who commanded the French Army in Morocco - >The French soldiers are fighting in Morocco to acquire territory . . . which will prove of great advantage to French trade. . . . Our object is commercial and economic . . . the extension of foreign trade. They were fighting, not for the French nation, but for French trade. In October, 1925, the London *Daily News* published the following statement by the late Lord Brentford, who was Home Secretary in the Conservative Government from 1924 to 1928 :- >We did not conquer India for the benefit nf the Indians. I know it is said at missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of Indians. That is cant. We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword and by the sword we should hold it. All of those prominent men, wellrespected in their own countries, have stated that wars are conducted for trade. Yet, we are told in this chamber that our troops will fight for England, for the United States and for Australia. It is not true. The contrary is the case. I hold in my hand a. little brochure that was written by Gerald de Cruz, who is a well-known Malayan journalist and a member of the Mayalan Nationalist Movement. It was published, not by him, but by the Union of Democratic Control, of 32 Victoria-street, London. The executive committee which authorized the publication consists of eight members of the House of Commons. The brochure was written in 1952. It reads, in part - >In June of 1952 the war in Malaya entered its fifth year. Thirty thousand regular soldiers and another 3D0,000 police and armed auxiliaries of various types, armed with the most modern weapons, energetically supported, by air force and navy, have been unable to overcome and vanquish what officialdom both here and in Malaya still describe as " 3,000 to ">.000 armed bandits". General Templer has hit the nail on the head. Soon after he took up his new duties in Malaya, he was reported to have stated - >could win this war in three months if I could get two-thirds of the people on my side. It is not a military problem, it is a political war. The basic problem is the people. In Malaya at present private companies, exercising extra-territorial right, and trading in the name of the nation, arc demanding the supply of armed forces to protect both them and their profits. The pamphlet goes on to say that the Singapore *Standard* wrote editorially - >The struggle against the Communists has remained throughout these years a struggle between a remote government with very little roots among the people and a revolutionary movement sustained by a determined minority The brochure then comments - >Without proper democratic' elections there will continue to be, as *The Economist* says, "no real loaders possessing the confidence of their peoples ". Without such leaders " the ^Emergency " will continue. In other words, de Cruz says that the fighting is to subjugate the Malayan people in the interests of foreign companies. Yet, we have the Prime Minister, supported by the Government, saying, " We will send troops to fight them ". An enormous army of troops and police has not been able to make any progress in five years. The Malayan people are fighting to obtain self-government. They are entitled to self-government and unless they fight for self-government they will be reduced to the lowest possible level. I do not know whether honorable senators have read a book which was written by the late E. D. Morell about 1920 called, the *Black Man's Burden.* It described the atrocities that had been perpetrated against the people who are now rebelling. It was stated in that book that the time would come when they would rebel. As General Templer has said, this is a political problem, and it is necessary to meet these people and discuss matters with them. Gerald de Cruz stated - >British rule ]1 ns not stimulated the Malayan consciousness of the need for a Malayan nationality; it is the contrary that is true. That is to be expected in the circumstances. **Mr. De** Cruz continued - >To try to yoke these new, proud, confident shoulders to the shackles of the pre-war colonial system was to ask for serious trouble. But that is precisely what Britain has tried and is trying to do. He then quoted **Dr. V.** Purcell, Lecturer in Ear Eastern History at Cambridge, who stated in the Spring 1952 number of The *Times Review of the British Colonies -* >. a federation completely reactionary in spirit and carrying Malays not back merely to 1039 but to some year prior to 1S74; and whereas the sultans were now given a position they had never before enjoyed, nearly half the Chinese and Indian population of the Malay States were denied citizenship, thus being excluded from the Constitution and politically disinherited. As **Dr. Purcell** has stated, the British have tried to force the Malayan populace, which . consists of Chinese, Indians and Malays, back into a feudal state. **Dr. Purcell** is a reputable man who occupies a. very important position. Gerald de Cruz has also written as follows: - >Sometime ago the trial oi an Australian rubber plantation manager on charges of aiding the " bandits " threw Tight on police methods in Malaya. He was acquitted of all charges brought against him but not until witness after, witness described what the police had done to them in order to get them to give information that the police wanted ththem to IVe. 1 They described threats from revolvershots, kickings, punchings, beatings with a cane, even the insertion of needles under fingernails. Tha *Manchester* Guardian has made n scathing comment on that matter. **Mr. de** Cruz stated - >On February 5th and Cth 1052, *tha Singapore standard* reported that a sixteen-year old girl had been sentenced to five years penal servitude for giving a towel and toothbrush to " bandits ". *A:* 21-ycar old boy in the same case, gpo ten. years; a 34-year old mother of three children "of, tender age'' received six years imprisonment when found guilty of " being, in possession- of a quantity of uncooked' rice presumably for tha use of- terrorists: " ; a, widow with a, son and daughter was sentenced to live, years under, similar circumstances. Those are typical of the cases of which the question is- being asked.- "Have- the police 'framed ' the evidence? "' In addition, more than 2,0,000 Malayans have at. one time or another been, imprisoned and kept in detention, without even the semblance of a trial. **Mr. de** Cruz also said: ; The first big measure that the. new " Iron Man " High. Commissioner - General **Sir Gerald.** Templar - applied, in 1952 was to punish about 25,000 people in the Tanjong. Malim ddistrict, J) 9 per cent, of whom are clearly innocent. This punishment was: on such a scale as to draw, forth criticism eeven from, the- Malayan, correspondents oof the " Times " and the " Observer ". A 22 hour curfew, the closing down of all shops except for two hours a day, the closing down of schools, the reduction by half- of the weekly rice ration - these things cannot be described otherwise- than as panickstricken measures imposed by an administra-tion which is at its wits end to know how to win the co-operation of the people. That is the administration that the Government proposes to support with: Australian troops. In his book, *For Fear of Weeping,* Patrick O'Donovan, correspondent of the *Observer,* described how he had accompanied Malayan police on a raid on a small village of " squatters ". He described how these were hustled out of their huts in- the following- words-: - a few women, some old men and boys. There were no young men. The police officer made a speech and the Chinese detectivetrans lated it. word by word. " I know you haw -ecn the bandits", he said "and you know I know. You're afraid of' the bandits; you won't help us: who are tile Government, so you'll just have to be as afraid of us as you an- of. the bandits. You have five minutes in which to take what you want out of your houses; then we buru them.". That happened live times. O'Donovan ended. " God forgive me ". The position is not as it has been represented to the people of Australia by the Prime Minister: Gerald de- Cruz commented - >But **Sir Gerald** Templar is carrying out essentially the same action on a grand scalp - ibc chemical destruction of crops is unotht-i indication of- this - and if. there is one thing that is certain it is that the. Malayan people will not forgive him. "Hostility, and bitter ness against the Government are precisely rh.emotion which Communists want to arouse; and they, are not the emotions that . .people to bring information- to. the- police and give their- co-operation," reported Michael Davidson, Observer Correspondent in Malaya, commenting on General Templar's punishment of the 25,000 people- of the Tanjong. Malim district-. Finally the writer of this- document said - >We need a government firmly based on the rank and' file Malayan; capable of seeing him not in- his historical; role- as a hewer, of wool and drawer of; water but, as the- swiftly unfolding scenes all around him in Asia hear witness, in the light of what he can become and' is becoming: - o. man conscious of his dignity, standing on his own- feet, and carving out his own destiny . . . We need a government which, deriving, from us; would enable us fully to participate in the social process. What Malaya* needs, therefore, is not less constitution making,, but more- constitution making. We need the election of u constituent assembly capable- of drawing, up a, constitution that shall-, represent the view,, needs and aspirations of all the people of Malaya-. The steps By which such an assembly might be elected will offer- no great difficulty- once- this basic principle of democratic representation - symbolic, ' of a new approach to Malayan problems and of a; determination to put the- welfare- of- the- people ni Malaya above all. else - is accepted. Wc need c government which we know and feel to bepart of ourselves. Only such a government as this can solve our problems; can develop Malaya- and enable the- people, of Malayan to develop themselves and can set. us, on the. road *ti:* peace and to a larger and richer life. The author of this, document- has emphasized what General Templar said. It is a political problem. Those who. would treat it as a military problem will make the position worse. As- Michael Davidson said, military coercion does more to bring Communists into being than., any other action. **.Senator Kendall'** referred to bandits. If- people are treated' as savages, they will behave, as savages, not only in, Malaya, but in, every country in the world, including our own. Therefore, any attempt to deal: with these, people by the use of force w.ill not be successful. It will- only result in solidifying the population which consists of Chinese, Indians and Malays; just as the resistance of the Chinese was solidified, resulting in the- establishment of the republic that now exists. A more objective approach is- required to this problem. The British have not solved the problemin Malaya and they have not acted for the benefit of the-Malayan people. Their action, has- been designed to benefit shareholders in private, companies and innocent men have been shot down, like dogs- in order to increase their profits. {: #subdebate-16-0-s0 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia" -- I am. sure that the Senate will forgive me if I do not attempt, to. follow the meandering path that was taken by **Senator Cameron.** I am privileged to be in this chamber this evening to support' the statement that was made .by the Prime Minister **(Mr.. Menzies)** and' the motion for the printing of." the paper which is before the Senate. The Prime Minister is. one of the very great men of the world. He is a great mind'. Beyond' that; he is one who, because- of. the depth, of his mind, has been able to mix and mingle with, the great figures of the world*. We have undoubted: proof of the- friendship that he has developed, with the head of the Commonwealth Nations of South Africa, India, Pakistan and Canada. We also know of the very close relationship that he has with the liead. of the United States of America.. These are qualities of which this nation will be very proud for many years to come. What a contrast- there is Between the approach- of our Prime Minister (Mr: Menzies) and the statement1 of **Senator Cameron,** to which the Senate has just had to listen.!' The honorable senator made- a venomous speech concerning- British rule in Malaya associating it with pillage; wrongful arrest and. imprisonment,, and. that kind of. thing. I hope; during, the course of my discussion of this: motion, to invite the. attention of honorable senators to the principal features of this important. paper, and not to deviate along other paths, as- honorable senators' opposite ha ve done. I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister because it contains the- broad principles of the foreign policy of this nation. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition (Sena tor McKenna) appears to- be in agreement, in general terms, with the principles stated therein. The- first broad principle with regard, to our foreign policy is that we must constantly seek for peace, provided that peace can be had with justice. The second is that- if - we are to become involved in war. we must see to it that- we> have powerful and willing- friends: Then; of course, we must not overlook our obligations to others. That' is the third principle. The fourth is that we,must' seek to raise living standards, not only -for ourselves, but also foi- all those' other nations which are struggling towards-- a- life- that we have been privileged to- enjoy- for- a long time. The foreign- policy of this -nation, as set out in' the paper before the Senate, is founded' on certain' main- principles. We support the Charter of the United' Nations) and the- structure and the procedures of that body. We- support? and cooperate with the other nations of the British Commonwealth. It should -be remembered that'- the British Empire, as- it was- once called; was- in existence' long - Before the United' Nations organization; or oven the League of Nations;, which' followed World! War 1., was- thought: of. Our foreign policy is based on. an honorable and historic foundation1. All along; thi? nation has been' prepared' to accept obligations; but not once, during the speeches of the last two honorable- senators opposite who occupied the time- of this chamber; did I detect any note' of acceptance of obligations, whether' military) cultural, or of- any other sort. A particular feature of our foreign, policy has become evident since the advent, of this Administration to power in 1949.. During what I may term the "locust years"' from 1946 to 1950, there was- no- positive Australian foreign policy with, regard' to Asia, that important part of the world to our north. This bas been- clearly shown in: the establishment by this. Government of diplomatic posts that did not exist prior to 1949. In the last five years, such posts have been established in Indo-China. Malaya, the Philippines, Burma, Cambodia and Japan. It was interesting to. observe,, at. the recent celebrations in this city, the good feeling which those- nations showed towards Australia by the attendance of their representatives, and also by their attendance at the opening of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme, and at the Australian War Memorial on Anzac Day. Prior to the advent of this Government, there was no contact with Asia ou the diplomatic level, and, consequently, there was no knowledge of Asian feeling towards us and, of course, no effort, by means of public relations, to make known our feelings towards Asia. That is a very important and positive thing which this Government has done. Of course, it has been supplemented by the incessant movement of officers of our Department of Commerce and Agriculture and Department of External Affairs, and by the movements of the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** himself. He travels almost incessantly, at great personal inconvenience, to be *au fait* with the important developments which have been taking place to our north. By way of contrast, I place on one side what the distinguished Minister for External Affairs is doing, and, on the other side, the type of speech developed by honorable senators opposite, in which they have attacked British rule in Malaya, amongst other things, in support of a foreign policy, the objectives of which have not been made clear to the Senate. It is an important fact that in Asia, at the present time, no state could stand alone against Communist China. The strength of that country is so great that it could annihilate, one by one, the individual states adjacent to it. Instead of allowing them to fall one by one, to the great credit of our distinguished Minister for External Affairs, the Seato idea has been fostered. As honorable senators know, the Seato or Manila treaty was formulated last year and in many ways was modelled on the United Nations system covering the assumption of obligations. The preamble of the Seato treaty is on lines very similar to those of the preamble of the United Nations Charter. This treaty has given great hope to the individual nations to the near north of Australia. In the statement before the Senate to-night, there appears a very interesting short paragraph which the Prime Minister read to the House of Representatives approximately a week ago. As it has not been referred to previously during this debate, I shall take the opportunity to read it to the Senate. It referred to a message that the right honorable gentleman had received from the acting chairman of the Manila Treaty Council representatives meeting at Bangkok, and read as follows: - >I have thu honour to inform von that at its informal meeting, April 7th, the Council Representatives of the South-East Asian Treaty Organization have taken note of the statement made by Your Excellency on the 1st instant, and welcomes the decision of the Australian Government to seek parliamentary approval for participation by Australian forces in a strategic reserve to be established in Malaya as an important part of the Treaty Area. That is the voice of the representative council of the Seato treaty nations - Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and so on - and it is important to realize that it is appreciative of this country accepting its obligations under that treaty. That, I think, is of signal importance for the Senate to consider to-night with regard to the establishment of a force in Malaya for the defence of Australia, and for the carrying out of our obligations under the treaty. After all, if we meet our obligations, we can expect very powerful movements to be made to assist us if ever that should be necessary. As I said at the outset, it should be remembered that the nations of South-East Asia could be picked off one by one by Communist China if they did not meet their obligations under the treaty. The question has been raised in this debate whether or not there would be objections to our forces operating in Malaya in the manner described in the paper. We have had one or two squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force in Malaya for four or five years, and I suggest that if those forces had been doing anything to the detriment of Australia we should very soon have heard of it from the Opposition, which, after all, is not altogether asleep. Yet, in my experience, not once has the voice of the Opposition been raised concerning those forces. I think it can be rightly assumed that our forces there have been doing much to the credit of this nation and nothing to its detriment. How is it suggested that a regiment or so, with ancillary troops, could create the chaos and havoc that some supporters of the Australian Labour party have described? These young men have gone forward in the interests of this country and have done a very great service to it. They have shown the people of Malaya their fine manly bearing, just as during World War IX, when the forces of the United States were in this country for training and operational purposes, by and large they made a very favorable impression. Great friendships have developed since those forces were in Australia. I believe that Brisbane is very proud of the fact that more thar one million American troops were at one time or another in that city. In my opinion, damage is not necessarily done because troops or service personnel of a particular nation are quartered, for operational purposes, in another nation's territory. I dismiss completely the idea that our troops might do us harm in Malaya. It was rather interesting to hear **Senator O'flaherty** say that lie was a great advocate of negotiation. I seems to me, however, that the sort of negotiation he advocates is negotiation in a vacuum. We on this side of the chamber are also great advocates of negotiation, the difference being that we believe in negotiation by means of such instruments as the Manila pact. We rely strongly on our membership of the British Commonwealth. Wo rely also on the Anzus pact, an important pact between Australia, New Zealand and the United States for mutual aid. I wish to read to the Senate another excerpt from this important paper. This is a statement that the Prime Minister was able to make to the Parliament as a result of his visit to the President of the United States, Mi-. Eisenhower. As honorable senators know, there is great pressure at present upon Australia's resources of money, men and materials. The obvious question that the Prime Minister would ask **Mr. Eisenhower** would be what Australia could hope to expect from the United States in the way of military supplies, because if we are to provide troops in a hurry, it will be necessary to ensure that supplies are available. The reassuring reply that the Prime Minister received from **Mr. Eisenhower** is indicated by the following passage : - 1 was assured that, having regard to what the Americans knew so well about Australia's attitude and lighting capacity, they would be happy to take this matter up with our officials upon the basis of an accurate assessment of our deficiencies, and consideration of the ways and means by which the equipment position might be improved. Such an assurance would not have been given by the distinguished President of the United States had he been dealing with some of the honorable senators who have spoken recently from the Opposition benches. Nor would it have been given had **Mr. Eisenhower** been dealing with an honorable member of the Labour party in the House of Representatives who alleged recently that the United States Embassy was paying money to a certain section of the Labour movement in Australia to which he was opposed. These assurances were given to our distinguished Prime Minister because the President of the United States knew that Australia could, and would, do its part to become worthy of such assistance. I wish to develop another aspect of this discussion which was not covered fully by the paper that is before the Senate to-night. All honorable senators should realize 'that national survival and development is not expressed in military terms alone. National survival depends on our ability to co-operate and, by that co-operation, to develop our trade with the rest of the world. I do not see the bogies that **Senator Donald** Cameron sees with regard to the industry, trade and agriculture of Malaya. I believe that the plantations and the estates that have been developed in Malaya are necessary. I do not see any difficulty arising from them. I believe it is a good thing that the people in those countries should have goods with which they can trade. It is important that the trade of Malaya should increase, and that the bandits who are disturbing the trade and the peace of the country and require large forces to contain them, should be put down. I believe that during the present period of peace, we should combine as a nation to develop our trade. The whole basis of the Colombo plan, which was fostered by this Government, in 1950, was that trade should increase, and that the backward nations of Asia should be 'enlightened -so that they .could make full use of their .land and manpower. There is a. great obligation upon this nation 'to increase its trade with the Asian nations. Let us consider what we have been able to do already under the Colombo plan. Numbers of tractors have been sent from Australia to Pakistan. In that connexion, an interesting suggestion was made in 'the Senate some months ago that the name-plates and various identity marks on the tractors should be printed in the characters of the country in which they will be 'used. For example, in Moslem countries they should be marked with A'rabic characters. If 'that were done, the people in the countries where the tractors were used would be able to appreciate that they came from Australia. Goodwill towards Australia has been fostered in Pakistan through the use of machinery that has been supplied under the Colombo plan. Throughout Asia, wherever Australian technicians have gone, the goodwill towards Australia has been increased. Recently, a great surgeon from Melbourne went to Indonesia and performed important operations. Reports I .have received of the work of that one Australian have indicated that he did much to foster goodwill towards Australia. If .we could increase .our trade and intercourse with Asian nations during this period of peace, it would be a move towards permanent peace and goodwill. Such trade would reduce shortages in the Asian countries and raise their standard of living. In the press to-day there was a .report from Darwin concerning ;the sale and transfer of cattle from the Northern Territory to the Philippines. That is an interesting country which is very firm in its understanding of the Seato arrangement. At present the people of the Philippines are endeavouring to encourage .new industries, and it is a significant .fact :that, for the first ten years, .each -.completely new industry is to be free of taxation. The .people of the Philippines want to .trade so that shortages will be overcome and the .population -will be -made more contented. I -do not i agree .with **Senator Cameron's** ' condemnation of private enterprise and of those -.who >own plantations in Malaya. I .'suggest ,that .we ; should .examine the other side of the question.; that we:should encourage increased .production and. use. of goods in. Asian countries . and so. enhance their .prosperity. The Australian people can make a very ,great contribution to that end. I believe that an American company has recently started to .manufacture the well-known Eveready batteries in the Philippines, and the person in charge is an Australian. I suggest that we should not go to sleep during the present period of peace. Let us develop. Let the intelligent people of this country, whether they are surgeons or manufacturers, go out and establish the prestigeof Australia amongst Asian nations. I am sure that if we station troops in various parts of Asia, they will be welcomed as champions to attack and annihilate communism which is the great enemy of Asia. {: #subdebate-16-0-s1 .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales -- I have taken some notes of the speeches of honorable senators so that I could speak on matters that they have raised, but I shall forget them for a moment to reply to **Senator Laught.** I am sure that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** would not have been pleased if he had heard the honorable senator's panegyric in his honour. According to **Senator Laught, Mr. Menzies** is a great friend of the Prime Minister of South Africa, **Mr. Strijdom.** If we were going to send troops to South Africa, where there are 9,000,000 coloured people without a voice in national affairs, where coloured men, women and children are hounded from their homes and coloured children are not allowed an education, I could understand it. But I cannot believe that the Australian Prime Minister is a great man and a great friend of the Prime Minister of South Africa. I have just been to South Africa, and I can say that all history is against **Mr. Menzies** and his so-called great mind. I invite honorable senators on the Government side to give me one example where military intervention in another country has not been followed ultimately by worse conditions. In 'South Africa, the British intervened more than 50 years ago, and the grandchildren of the Boers "are more antiBritish 'than -were 'their -grand-parents. The average 'Briton in "South Africa believes 'that there .are mo decent Boers, and the Boers 'have no love for the British. The' bitterness- between the Boers and' the British as a result of' what happened 50 years ago is so great that they have no joint policy --for dealing with the 9,000,000 coloured people, Africans- and Indians, and every one knows that at any moment, anything could happen in South Africa* At one period in history- comparatively recently, the British intervened in Ireland. The Black and Tans went in and, as a result; any chance there might have been of reconciliation with Ireland disappeared. As soon as- an army of intervention goes- into a country, the- atrocities start. If the Australian Prime Minister had visited Pandit Nehru, he might have learned, something. **Mr. Menzies** has done Australia a great dis-service. Everybody wanted to know why Australia proposed to send troops to Malaya, and they listened attentively to the right honorable gentleman. The Prime Minister engaged in endless rhetoric, but hardly dealt with the subject at all. What the people want to know is what the troops' are going to' do when they get to Malaya ?' How will the despatch of troops stop communism and help Australia? I shall be astonished if **Mr. Menzies** is shown to have the intelligence that **Senator Laught** has attributed to him. I do not think that he has a profound mind in the sense that the term is applied to Pandit Nehru. The Prime Minister has told Australia, and the world, that the troops will go to Malaya to stop communism. T am surprised that a man with the mind of **Mr. Menzies** should have indulged in such anti-Communist tripe. I know that there are people who, if a Communist says that the time is a quarter to three, will promptly declare that it' is a quarter past, no matter what the clock says. We hear a great deal about the wonderful intelligence of the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey),** but although I do not wish to be personal - I have a great admiration for **Mr. Casey** as a man - but when **Mr. Casey** says that, intervention by Australia in Malaya would be received in the same spirit as the intervention of North Atlantic Treaty organization troops would be received in Europe, I' disagree. Does not **Mr. Casey** know that the colour bar is' a big- question with the- people1 of the East?: If I1 were- the Prime Minister I would get rid of **Mr. Casey** immediately. My reason, for saying- that, is not personal. Mir: Casey is- a gentleman- and an able man, but ho is no- match' for the Communists when it comes te propaganda. I have told the Senate before how greatly I dislike- Communists and communism, but in the propaganda field they are experts, whereas **Mr. Casey** and those associated with him do not know where they are going: Consequently their position goes-- from bad to worse. **Mr. Casey** was at one time the Governor of Bengal, but he did not want to free India. He was a British rajah, and he believed in a White Australia. I believe that Australians should' be free to run their country in their own way. I am glad that we have an Australia which is white, because in Africa I saw something of the difficulties associated with a mixture of the races. However, when we claim the right to run our country as we like we have no right to go to other countries and tell the people there how those countries should be run. If ever there was a time when the Communists were conciliatory, it is now: Before the Bandung conference the press had a lot to say about it. It was ray intention to go to Bandung, because I thought the conference would be an important one, seeing that those assembled there would be the leaders of half of the human race, and that eleven ministers from Asian and African countries would meet in conference. {: .speaker-KAW} ##### Senator Wedgwood: -- Why did the honorable senator stay .away? {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I shall tell the honorable senator. Frequently I am accused of speaking too quickly, whereas the fact is that the brains of honorable senators opposite move too slowly to understand me. I had paid my own fa re and1 booked my seat, but just about that time there was a little trouble in the Labour party and I thought it was my duty to remain here. Fortunately, the trouble has now been resolved and the wheat has been separated from the chaff ; hut by the time things had been straightened out it was too late for me to go to Bandung. The press has told' us that the Bandung conference was of no consequence. On a. previous occasion I was almost prophetic when' **Senator** Gorton was speaking. I said, "You say that there is liberty in Viet Nam, but there is no liberty there ". I went on to say (.hat Seato would set up a colour bar. At .Bandung there was a line up. It was to be a Communist outfit. The Premiers of India and Ceylon were expected to tell the world what communism meant, but to their surprise the Premier of China said, " You can send your men to the frontier, and if you can see anything wrong you can brand us as aggressors ". The Prime Minister of Ceylon, who was regarded as one of the most important .men in the British Commonwealth, said he was convinced that the Prime Minister of China wanted njctmciliatie.il with the United States of America. To-day, the bluff is over, and the reign of Chiang Kai-shek, as a world leader is ended. He said that he would light the Chinese, that be would fight the Japanese, that he would fight in Indo-China, but now there is to be a *tete-a-tete* about the Formosa Straits unless Colonel Joshua has advised them otherwise. Could there have been a worse time for **Mr. Menzies** to throw in a spanner? Obviously, the speech that **Mr. Menzies** delivered a. few nights ago was written for him, because any one who listened to hint would know he was speaking from something he himself had not prepared. The last time he spoke, he said that the Communists would be ejected from Viet Nain and Indo-China, but since then there have been three armies in that country, the strongest of which was led by a man of strength because he owns all the brothels in Saigon, iis has been admitted by the press of the world. He leads the greatest gang of degenerates the world has ever known. It is said by **Mr. Menzies** and others that there is no connexion between events in Indo-China and Malaya, but I say that there is a strong connexion between the two. In the first place, both countries were conquered by the Japanese. Their people were told that after the war they would have their liberty, and that the French were to be driven out. But in came the British and they used the Japanese to put the French hack. "When the French were there, some companies which traded in whisky and opium had their capital returned to them every two years. Things became so nice, it is said, that the only people who were fighting for the French were some Polish and German legionnaires. That is nearly the case in Malaya to-day. Honorable senators opposite say that Malaya was a wonderful place, but only 3,000 persons out of a total population of 3,000,000 had a vote. In other words, only one person in 1,000 was entitled to exercise the franchise. Is it any wonder that the people said they did not care whether the Japanese or the British controlled them? When the struggle was over, the British- said they would keep the territory. As soon as they got back again the guerillas organized a force of 200,000 men. Strikes were outlawed. W ages were 60 cents a day for male kaffirs and 4.0 cents a day for women kaffirs. I travelled to Singapore with a typical Scottish bonehead during the last war;, and if there is anything more stupid than a Scottish bonehead I would like to see it. However, I am thankful that there are also Scottish men with intelligence. He said that Singapore, which is just across the Straits from Malaya, was a marvellous place, because it had no taxes. After the war was over taxes were imposed. The clock was put back. Each year 500,000,000 dollars worth, of rubber is produced in Malaya. Why not be fair when speaking of the 5,000 so-called rebels? At one time a. man is a rabble rouser, but if he wins an election he then becomes a different man. He, who previously was a rabble rouser is then wanted by them but, if the next election goes against him be will become a rabble rouser again. Honorable senators may have heard of General Templar, one of the most brutal men in the British Army. According to **Mr. Justice** Douglas, General Templar said, "We are now killing 150 guerillas a month. Let us kill 300 a month and the rebellion will not last long". Yet I suppose General Templar professes to be a Christian. I wonder what the Mahommedans think of his statement. In Malaya there are 375,000 police and soldiers. Why cannot they stop the rebels? The reason is that the army of occupation cannot absorb any more men. They are searching for guns and literature, and they spend their time going backwards and forwards. If sonic one gets troublesome they call him a Communist. Now it is said that the army of occupation is a greater nuisance than the guerillas were, and that the sooner it gets out of the country the better. We have an idea that if a thing is good for us it must be good for others also. In his book *North from Malaya,* **Mr. Justice** Douglas says on page 202 - >These rulers seemed to have no appreciation «f the fact that if thu people had the franchise there would be a vast improvement. Then the people would have confidence in government. Then the people would have the political, as well us the military, instrument with which to combat *communism.* Once the people had a vital stake in the country, they would know new loyalties, new strength, new pride. That's what the school teacher at Hue thought; that was the view 1 encountered in the restaurants and along the highways. The British authorities have not taken a trick; no, not one. In the same book **Mr. Justice** Douglas, speaking of General Chiang Kai-shek, says on page 2S3 - >The Kuomintang is the tiger. The Kuomintang is still the vested interest, the status q/1/ in Asia. There are revolutions in Asia - Burma, India, Pakistan, Malaya, Vietnam, the Philippines. Some. are Communist-dominated; others are not. But the Kuomintang would label them all " subversive ". The Kuomintang has trappings of democracy; but at heart it represents the opposition to change. What Asia Wants is leadership for her revolutions. Formosa does not supply it - actually or symbolically. Foi the Kuomintang represents the past - some if it decent, much of it reactionary, most of it. full of despair. Until recently, those whom honorable senators opposite represent, wanted Chiang Kai-shek back. That was because they swallow everything that is said by the United States. Could any honorable senator believe it? {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- The honorable senator must be the only one who .does. I give credit to the British for what they have done for liberty. I applaud the British Labour party for its social services activities, and I praise the British for giving us trial by jury, and habeas corpus, for the starting of the trade union movement, for being the Mother of the Parliaments, and for giving you and me an opportunity to express our opinions freely in this Parliament, but I do not give credit' to the British for what is taking place in Malaya or for their action during the opium war in China. That war, despite our intellectual friend **Senator McCallum,** took place under the Prime Ministership of Lord Salisbury. I do not give the British credit for some of the things they have done to workingclass people in their own country. But to-day the position is different. The Asian is educated. He is just as good as we are. I only hope that he will not develop a superiority complex. When I was in Africa, I found that the young generation there was quite oblivious of what was taking place. One white i» still worth ten blacks and so on. People who believe that should read the book. *The Colour Bar,* written by the great cricketer Leary Constantine. The white is not superior in any way. Anthropologically he is not superior. He is only superior when he has had superior training. The treatment of coloured peoples in this country is probably better than it is anywhere else in the world. Some of us, of course, still sling off at coloured people. That is inevitable, but does any one believe that we shall endear ourselves to Asian people by sending our troops there? I do not know much about military matters and, having heard some so-called military experts air their view* here and in the House of Representatives, I am glad that I do not. I do know, however, that if we have a military base in Malaya, between us and that base there will be 100,000,000 Indonesians. What will they do about it? That is a question that some honorable senator opposite might answer for me. I am against the Government's proposals, not because I am a Communist but because I am an anti-Communist. Knowing something about Asia, I say that if the Russian or Chinese Communists had paid **Mr. Menzies** to get Australia off-side with Asia, he could not have done a better job than he has done by formulating these proposals. How would we react if soldiers came down here from Malaya or Indonesia and said that they were only here to protect themselves, and that they would not take our liberty away? I have never known any army to fight for liberty. I do not blame the soldier, but everywhere he has gone ha has fought to defend vested interests. A Apparently those who talk so .glibly about being anti-Communist have learned nothing since 1917. Had it not been for the stupidity of Churchill and Lloyd George, die Russian revolution would never have been a. Communist .revolution. Russia was breaking up as probably China would have broken up if it had not been for the silly backing of Chiang-Kai-shek. Lenin :md Trotsky were struggling hard. Stalin was not even there at that time. He played no part in the revolution. But Lloyd George and Churchill sent troops ro Russia, and Lenin, one of the master political minds of .all time - *I* do not think anybody will disagree with that - said, "Forget about Bolshevism. Forget about the Mensheviks. Our fatherland has been invaded ". Russia became united., and established a dictatorship which still exists. That would have happened in India if the British .had not quitted that country, thanks to the British Labour party. Consider for a moment what our position would be if rudi a had gone Communist. The socalled anti-Communists in this chamber and elsewhere who criticize **Mr. Nehru,** should be ashamed of themselves. If it were not for that great leader, all India would be Communist .to-day. He is having the fight of his life against the Communists. But, **Senator Laught** did not commend the Prime Minister for speaking to **Mr. Nehru.** No, he commended : him for his association with **Mr. Strijdom.** He was a great friend of that gentleman. What a wonderful compliment to **Mr. Nehru** ! I should like, finally, to quote the views of **Dr. Peter** Russo, one of our ablest political critics. Recently, **Dr. Russo** was to speak on the .Bandoeng conference, -over 2FC. However, at the time when the talk was scheduled to start, listeners were informed that technical difficulties had arisen. Then we heard **Dr. Russo** say that, in spite of all that we had been led to expect from the conference, it seemed to have been fairly successful. Then, once more, .a voice announced that there had been further technical trouble. The result was that we did not hear **Dr. Russo's** talk. Later the .same evening, however, we had no difficulty in hearing other speakers, including :a government apologist. I have never met **.Dr. Russo,** but .1 .recall that, when I was in Japan just prior to the outbreak of "World War II., he was a professor of Oriental languages at the University of Tokyo. Undoubtedly he has a great mind. I am sure he will not object to my saying that he was the son of a poor Italian market gardener in Victoria. Due to .his great intellectual capacity, he had a brilliant scholastic career and, as I have said, in 1939 he was professor of Oriental languages at the Tokyo University. He speaks several oriental languages fluently, and I do not think he can be accused of being a Communist. He is also the foreign affairs writer for the Melbourne *Argus.* Here is what he says about the Government's proposal to send forces to Malaya - >If Australian troops in Malaya, can fit into tl is emotional pattern df the !kind of Asia that is rising' about us, well and good. I for one do not see how it can be done, but I do see an increasing clanger of making more Communists out of Asians who had never thought about it before; and of storing up for us a long-term Asian resentment of the kind which can never be dissolved logically, not even with the best will in the world. What is the use of talking about assisting Asian countries under the Colombo plan if we are to destroy our goodwill by stationing Australian troops in Malaya? The Asians will say, "We know why white troops have been sent here in the past, .and we know why they are :here again to-day ". If the democracies want the -support of the Asian peoples, they should do what has been done in Burma - give them something now. We are told that the Japanese would not give them anything. In Singapore, elections were held recently and the Labour candidates won. The result is that health services and education are being improved. ' Land reforms will improve the lot of the peasants, and, as .this happens, so will "the terrorists cease to exist. That is the .lesson of history, but history does not teach us .that invading forces have ever done anything to improve the lot of .subject nations. To-day, the Japanese want to see the Americans out .of 'their country. They know that they .cannot exist without 'trade with -China. .Millions of Japanese children are suffering 'from malnutrition because their diet is lacking in vitamins. liven if honorable senators opposite tallow their usual practice and take no notice of what I say, I hope they will take notice of **Dr. Peter** Russo's statement that the sending of .troops to Malaya will -stir up against us an enmity which the best will in the world will not erase. That is my opinion also. The Communists will give three cheers for **Mr. Menzies.** When we were fighting them on the democratic front, we were winning. Now, this proposal has been thrown in. The anti-Communist bogy has been raised in every country.. It has even been raised in the Labour party in Australia. We should aim. to improve the conditions of the Asian people, because, as we do, so the bandits and terrorists will cease to exist. There are 375,000 troops and police -in Malaya. Eight years ago, there were 5j000 bandits. There are still 5,000 bandits. What is the cause of that? Will the sending of Australian troops to Malaya help to improve the position? I believe that a great mistake is being made, and I hope that, even at this late hour, something will be done to defer the going away of those forces. {: #subdebate-16-0-s2 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP .- I suppose this is one of the .most important debates .that the Parliament has ever had, because, as has been pointed out from both sides of the chamber, we find ourselves in close geographical affinity with an Asia which is in a ferment. And not only that: We also find ourselves in a world in which Communist expansion has been stopped in "Europe, and in which Communist expansion, if it is to take place at all, will take place in -Asia, and nearer and -nearer to us. Communist expansion has been stopped in Europe because, with the signing of the North -Atlantic Treaty Organization pact, and with the arming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, it has become clear to those who direct Communist activities that any further overt move in Europe will result in massive opposition, and, indeed, in a war. Because that has 'become clear, Europe has become a sea of relative peace. Its boundaries have become solidified, and there is no immediate danger 'there. But, in Asia, 'that is "not so. Asia, fluid and in 'ferment, is 'f he "place where we can expect Communist expansion 'to 'take place, if it is to take place at all. Therefore, the centre of gravity of world affairs has moved closer to us than it has ever been in our .history, and the decisions which w.e take here may well have :an effect on the future of this country greater than .that of any decisions ever taken before. That is why I say this is probably one of the most important debates that the Parliament has ever had. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that principles are all very well, but that it is only when one tries to put them into practice that the test comes. T suppose the 'key statement in the Prime Minister's speech was the announcement that we would commit .to "Malaya a strategic reserve as a core of Seato, and that, in the event of a "hot war', we would commit further formations of troops, not necessarily to Malaya, as I read the speech, but to that general area. *It* is on this statement that most of the objections of honorable senators opposite are based. I do not think those objections can 'be lightly swept aside or dismissed, although I do believe that the evidence that is available indicates that they are not well-founded. Let us examine them. We are told by the Opposition that if we do commit to Malaya troops from this country to replace troops which Britain has there now - not to introduce new forces, but merely to replace or augment troops which Britain already has there - we will not be fighting the Communists but fighting Malay nationalists; that we shall be seeking to perpetuate British colonialism; and that the people of Malaya, and Asians generally, must interpret our action in that way and therefore regard us as handmaidens of colonial powers. There would seem 'to be very "little evidence to support this contention. It draws no distinction between committing forces to fight Communists - and committing forces to fight Malayan independence. It assumes that the Malayans themselves 'cannot, and will not draw any such distinction. **Senator Grant** 'told us, as evidence df this, that the strength df the Malayan forces 'in the jungle, which started at about -5,000 terrorists, is 'still a'bout that strength. He contended that the fact that they 'have been able .to keep their troops, in spite 'of decimation and surrenders, indicates some strong public support of these people. But does it? It was about seven years ago that the Communists in Malaya took to the jungle, and armed themselves with hand grenades, automatic weapons and light mortars, some of which were left over at the end of the war, and some of which have been introduced from China over the Siamese border. At that time they embarked on a campaign of ambush and killing, with the intention of disrupting the rubber and tin industries of Malaya, and finally, by destroying the economy and by pouring the blood, not of the English only, but of the English and Malays onto the floor of Malaya, to gain, their way for their masters in China. They provided in Malaya a nucleus around which all Malays who were dissatisfied, who thought that colonialism was oppressing them, could have rallied and destroyed the government of that country. They did not get that support from the Malayan people. Now. seven years afterwards, they have been driven back deeper and deeper into the jungles of Malaya. During last December - the last month, for which figures are available - throughout Malaya the Communists killed two home guards, one soldier, and seven civilians. Any killings are bad enough, but a force which, after seven years, with all the advantages of jungle hide-outs can cause just that much damage, and which has not disrupted the rubber and tin industries, is not a force which can claim that the Malayan people have rallied to its side. [ think it is reasonable to say that the evidence indicates that the Malayan people did not rally to its support. More than that, we have been given figures here by both the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna)** and other speakers, indicating that hundreds of thousands of armed people have to be used to keep these Communists in «heck. What they have not told us, and what is of great importance, is that more than 200,000 of those people whom they are counting are native Malays, organized in home guard units on a voluntary basis to protect their cwn villages from the depredations of these bandits, and that they have taken a great and worthwhile part in their own defence against these incursions. If, from the native population, there can be raised a force resistant to insurrection of this kind, the indication is that the insurrection does not have the support of the people in that country. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- The honorable senator said something similar in relation to Indo-China. {: #subdebate-16-0-s3 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA -- The vital point is that we do not have in Malaya the problem which was encountered in IndoChina, of people who are farmers by day and fighters by night - people mingling with the population and then turning into guerillas. That problem is not existent in Malaya, which indicates that there is not amongst the people of Malaya support for these insurrectionists, which is one of the arguments advanced by the Opposition. That contention cannot be lightly swept aside; it must be examined, and when examined it will be found not to be based on the evidence. Those are indications of what the people of Malaya feel about what has happened over the last seven years, but we do not have to depend on that. We have the statement made by the leaders of the political parties in Malaya itself on this matter, statements which indicate quite clearly that those leaders do draw a distinction between independence, which they all want, and fighting the Communist terrorists. I have here statements made by **Sir Cheng-lock** Tan, president of the Malayan Chinese Association, one of the greatest political parties in Malaya. He has lived in Malaya all his life and he has stated - and these are not selected statements - >Self-government, in Malaya would be useless if the country fell to Communist tyranny. What is the good of having self-government and then becoming a Communist State? Communism is tyranny of the most wicked kind. He has carefully drawn a distinction between independence for Malaya and independence from British rule, but subjection to Communist rule. Dato **Sir Onn** Bin Ja'afar, leader of the Negara party, and Pro-Chancellor of the University of Malaya, has made statements of the same kind. Those statements by people from leading political parties indicate the truth of the inference we can draw from the history of what has happened in Malaya, and the lack of support which the terrorists have received there. **Senator Grant** keeps saying something about troops. I would like to point out that Tengkn Abdul Rahman has stated quite clearly that Malaya should remain in the British Commonwealth after being granted independence, and will need for a period the protection of British arms. That protection is precisely what the Government proposes in sending troops to Malaya. I do not know whether any members of the Opposition really believe that these troops are sent to impose colonial nile. I do not believe that they do, and from what has been said, I believe it is a reasonable inference that the Malayans themselves do not believe it. We are told again that to send these troops to the defence of Malayan independence, which- is what they are going for, will cause Asian resentment against Australia - will cause Asians to regard Australia in a very bad light, but Great Britain has been carrying on this fight with British troops for some seven years. Will honorable senators opposite say that Britain has a very bad name in South-East Asia because it has been carrying on this fight? Will they say that Great Britain is regarded by the Asians as a. bad power because it has been combating communism in Malaya? I do not believe they would, and I know that they could not substantiate it if they did. The Labour party led by **Mr. Marshall,** which has just won an election, not in Malaya, but in Singapore, is pro-British. Yesterday's Melbourne *Herald* stated that he desired Malaya to remain within the British Commonwealth. After seven years of the sort of thing that has been happening, we were told that that would not be so. I do not believe there is any force in that argument at all. For reasons that have nothing to do with Great Britain at all, it is very difficult to give immediate independence to Malaya. That is because Singapore and ^Malaya are separate entities, with completely separate governments. There is a very great deal of jealousy between those governments and it is due to the fact that the Malays as a race are in a minority in their own country ; Indians make up 10 per cent, to 15 per cent, of the population, and. Chinese most of the remain der. All the nationalities, jealous of one another and suspicious of one another, want to see independence come as long as they are not subjugated to other nationalities. These are real things, which add difficulty to the cause of Malayan independence, but they have not added any difficulties strong enough to prevent that cause porgressing. Before I leave that point let me read what **Mr. Nehru** said of the problem of Malaya, and its bearing on Asian opinion of Australia. In a speech that he delivered in the Indian Lower house last September, -he said - >All of us here, I believe, are in favour of Malayan independence. True, but remember this, that the problem of Malaya is not always an easy one. lt is difficult because, oddly enough, in Malaya the people of Malaya are in a minority. That raises difficulties and confusion. Nobody is in a majority, singly considered; the Chinese are in great numbers; the Indians may be 10 per cent, or 15 per cent. Now the indigenous people of Malaya are not at all keen on something happening which might give power to non-Malayans there. I am merely pointing out the difficulties which we have to understand. If that statement, coming from one of the great Asian leaders, is held to indicate that British troops or Australian troops will be regarded, or were regarded at the time that statement was made, as oppressors, then all I can say is that that statement is being interpreted in a completely different way from what the words suggest. Independence is coming quickly to Malaya. We have recently seen, as members of the Opposition have pointed out, an election in Singapore in which the majority of members of the Parliament of that State were elected by popular suffrage. We were told yesterday - I think by the Leader of the Opposition - that the civil service of Malaya was closed to Malays, and that 67 members of Malayan origin were all that existed in that civil service. That is not true. I only have the figures in relation to division 1 of that civil service - the highest division - the executive division, which show that there were 578 Malayans in that division at the end of March of last year. The number is growing rapidly. In the lower grades of the service, a greater proportion of Malayans is employed. The number employed in the first division grew in one year from 135 to 578, and- it; lias been> growing- at the same rate since then! Dave Marshall, who has just won an election in Singapore, has as one of. his objectives what he calls the " Malayanization of the civil service ". The elections for the Federation of Malaya will take place this month, and when they have taken place, both the Federation of Malaya and Singapore will be self1 governing in all internal matters, with a- parliament selected by universal suffrage and- with a civil' service staffed by Malayans Born in the country. Powers relating to foreign affairs and defence still remain to be handed over: But, considering: the progress that this country has made, and considering the fact that its leaders have, with one voice, made statements- of their belief in British sincerity, it would be completely wrong for us to refuse to defend that country against small bands of people who have taken to the jungle with tommy guns. I do not believe that there is any truth in the Opposition's contention that the Malays will regard this step adversely and that Asia will regard it adversely. What do we want in Malaya? We should like to have an independent Malaya and a Malaya which is not Communist. That is what the United Kingdom is working for, and that is what Australia will be working for, if it. assists the United Kingdom. The importance to Australia of an independent, non-Communist Malaya, instead of a Malaya which is Communist and therefore not independent, cannot be over estimated. We have heard the crack and. rumble of artillery fire coming from jungles which are nearer and nearer to Australia each year. We do not want to hear that sound in the. Malayan jungle, because if it is heard there, and if it ceases in defeat, we shall next hear it right on our very doorstep. It is wrong to confuse the issue by saying that, to fight against Communists there is- to fight against Malaya. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- Who has asked Australia to send troops? {: #subdebate-16-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! There is. far too much interruption, which isirritating to the speaker. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON: -- The Prime Minister made certain remarks concern ing the- problem of; Formosa1. Australia is not directly concerned in that- problem in the way in which' it has- been concerned with Malaya ; but' the troops which have been committed1 hypothetically in Malaya will' need to be used' if Formosa should1 fall to the. Communist's. I believe that the Government' shares the belief with the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America, that if Formosa and' the Pescadores' fall to Communist China that country will push through Siam and Malaya and into Burma. But if Formosa is kept out of the control of Communist China, that threat will be far less likely. It may be that' the Communist Chinese have no ambitions for expansion but, if that is so, what they have already done is grossly' misleading: From the fact that Communist China started the Korean war, signed an agreement to end it which it did not keep, entered into the Indo-Chinese War; signed an agreement to end that which it is not- keeping and then put the heat on the Formosan Straits we are lead to assume that Communist China has expansionist aims which could bring it close to Australia. Whilst being prepared, to talk, at any time on any matter, we should be very careful about making any concessions on any matter of strategic importance to this country. I do not blame the Communist Chinese for taking the course that they have followed. It has been followed in their, own Communist- interests. This is- the line that they have taken. They make a demand; they concentrate their forces; they have a big, military " build-up " ; they say, " Either I get what I want, or I will start a third world war"; then they say, " Well,, let us talk about it " ; and they receive concessions without having to fight; then they repeat the process. As long as they can Tet concessions they will' go on doing that. But the time must come when we shall say, " So far and no further ". The more concessions these people receive, the more territory they take, and the more populations they engul the more dangerous it will be for us eventually to say, " So far and no further", because they will' have the territory, the population and the resources to risk a war which, so far, they have only threatened. I believe that now, in connexion with the Formosan Straits and Malaya, it is time to say to the threat of overt force, " So far and no further ; if you use force we shall resist it effectively ". That is our best hope of preserving peace. If we go on as we went on in my young days, when the democracies conceded the Rhineland, conceded Austria, and conceded Czechoslovakia, we shall again have to fight for survival under the worst possible conditions. If aggressive forces had been resisted strongly at the beginning in those days we should have been spared the war. History is repeating itself. "Coexistence " is a term which was first used in 1926 by Stalin in connexion with a " number of European States, including the Baltic States, Poland and Czechoslovakia. But co-existence should be used to mean the co-existence of all territories, not the co-existence of all territories except the one that a particular power wants to- take at a particular time These are the points which should exercise our minds and which will exercise them in future. I hope that we shall follow the courses which I have suggested are the best. If we do not, the future will be extremely doubtful. But we shall come through it in the end. I should not like us to come through with the sacrifices that we have already had to make once because we were too yielding when we should have been strong. {: #subdebate-16-0-s5 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- This debate is on the Prime Minister's **(Mr. Menzies)** statement on foreign affairs and defence. The main point in the speeches that we have heard is the sending of troops to Malaya. Yet, this matter was decided for us long before honorable senators returned to this chamber for the present sitting of the. Parliament. It was reported in Western Australian newspapers some weeks before I left home that troops would be leaving for Malaya in August. Honorable senators have been presented with a *fait accompli* but that does not deter us from expressing our opinions. A great deal of talk has been heard in this debate about lack of policy by the Australian Labour party and the name " Com- munist" has been hurled here and there. I, in common with my colleagues, resent the loose way in which that term has been used to connote any one who dares to oppose the policy of the Government, particularly in relation to defence. The Australian Labour party has indeed a very proud record in connexion with defence. In the two great crises with which the country has been faced in the last 40 years, a Labour government in the Federal Parliament was called upon to undertake the work of defence, and to undertake a task in the execution of which others who had been elected to high positions had failed. The defence policy of the Australian Labour party was proved successful because Australia emerged a successful nation in company with the Allies after each of the two great conflagrations. It is interesting for honorable senators who were in this chamber in the war years to hear recriminations from the Government benches against the Australian Labour party for being antiAmerican. ' When I first came to this chamber twelve years ago, the same epithets were hurled at Labour senators for being anti-British because the late **Mr. Curtin** had dared to seek from the United States of America that aid which was necessary for Australia to survive because the United Kingdom could not give us the assistance that we required. The United Kingdom was then the only nation that was left in Europe to fight nazism. It was physically impossible for the United Kingdom to help Australia, particularly after two great units of the British fleet had been sunk off Singapore. When our great war-time leader made an approach to the United States his appeal did not fall on deaf ears. **Senator Laught** praised the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** for his sagacity and wisdom in approaching the Government of the United States ' for help in strengthening our sinews of war. The Prime Minister obtained an assurance from the President of the United States that whatever Australia needed in the way of machinery and implements necessary for war would be made available by the Government of the United States. This is not a new measure. **Dr. Evatt,** the very man whom the Government now reviles, and whose reputation the press and radio have tried- to drag down into the gutter, was sent -to the United States by **Mr. Curtin** in the critical days of 1942 in order to secure from the American Government the equipment of which the Australian forces stood badly in need. A Labour government was not in office when the war broke out but was forced into office a few months before Japan struck. I heard **Senator Gorton** speaking to-night about the rumbling of the guns as they come through the jungle ever closer to Australia, and I was reminded that fifteen years ago the same people with ears to hear heard the steady tramp of feet as the Japanese came closer and ever closer to our shores. At that' time, the flower of our manhood was fighting on the battlefields of Europe and Africa. No matter where the conflict for liberty has been fought over the last half century, ever since Australia has been a nation, the young men of this country have not been found wanting. The Australian young folk have a very high sense of responsibility towards the nation. In those years there were people who heard the ominous rumblings of war, but nothing was done about it. Then the Australian people woke up one morning to find, for the first time in 150 years, that foreign aggressors had struck at our people on Australian soil. We found Australian dead in Darwin and on the north-west coast of Western Australia, within a few flying hours of Perth. I was present in this Parliament when the Prime Minister of the day sent for the Western Australian members and told them that a Japanese armada was approaching Fremantle. They were asked to make their own decision in the matter - whether to go back to the West and add to the large number of helpless people there, or to stay here and hope for the best. It was only by the grace of God, and not because of any good management on our part, that that armada was diverted and failed to reach Fremantle, where ships lay stem to stern, so that there was "not sufficient room for them to get out in an emergency. People from Singapore and the places about which we have been hearing to- night flooded down from the north to the safe refuge of Western Australia. Others who came to our shores seeking refuge were not so fortunate. We all know of the tragedy of Broome in those war years ; how the Dutch aeroplanes had just reached the town, and how their tired pilots, almost fainting at the controls, had gone into the town to get a little rest or relief, when the Japanese came after them and machine-gunned every man. woman and child in the aircraft. The wrecks of those aeroplanes can be seen to-day in the waters at Broome. Inside the little harbour there was, until recently, a number of white crosses marking the last resting place of the men, women and children. The inscriptions on those crosses were most pathetic. They included the following : - " Unknown female child, aged about five years ", " Unknown female, aged about seventeen years ", and "Unknown male child, aged about four months ". Those inscriptions show that in modern warfare there is no discrimination because of sex, age or anything else. Those scenes were enacted on our Australian soil, and people who think that similar scenes could not be enacted if a third world war were to break out - which, Heaven forbid - are very much astray in their thinking. If they believe, as was the case in 1939, that a bastion at Singapore or in Malaya is going to be sufficient for the defence of this country, they are also wrong. It is noteworthy that in every budget submitted to this Parliament during the past three or four years there lias been a very large provision for defence. There is not an honorable senator on this side of the chamber who would question such provision, because we say that the main task of this Parliament is to see that the country is adequately defended. Year after year, however, we find just before the budget session, that there is a large sum of money in the defence vote which has been unexpended. Last year, I think that the amount was stated in the newspapers to be as high as £70,000,000, of a defence vote of £200,000,000, which meant that only about two-thirds of the vote had been expended. It might be thought that the lessons of the last war would have sunk sufficiently deeply into the minds of the Government, some members of which were also in government when the last war broke out, to make them appreciate that this country should never again be left in a state of unpreparedness. I admit readily that, from the point of view of the safety of our own skins, it is much better that we should fight the enemy away from Australia, but we have to make certain that Australia is able to defend itself. What do we find at Darwin? What has been done there? Only recently, on the anniversary of the day when Darwin was bombed, certain references were made to the strategic importance of Darwin in our defence plans. Very little has been done in the last five or six years to carry into effect the programmes that have been envisaged. It should not be forgotten, in any scheme of defence, that this is an island continent. Recruitment in all arms of the services is well below the target, despite the intense campaign that has gone on. When we turn on our radios and open our newspapers we hear and see expensive advertisements advising the young people of Australia to join one or other of the defence services, but despite all this campaigning the vacancies in the various branches still exist. That brings me to a point which I should like to- have clarified. How is this force for Malaya to be recruited? Is it to be a voluntary or a conscript force? Those are questions which are very important. I regret very much that some honorable senators opposite have not as much knowledge of China to-day as has their colleague, **Senator Kendall.** I remember last year listening in this chamber to one of the best speeches on foreign affairs that I had heard for some time. It came from **Senator Kendall** and is recorded in *Hansard,* Senate proof issue No. 4 of Thursday, the 9th September last. In the course of his speech he expressed his faith in the China of to-day, and he gave us, as one who had lived there for some time, his personal impressions gained from knowedge of the Chinese people. He recommended to the Senate something which, if I were to recommend it, could cause me to be called a Communist. He recommended the inclusion in the United Nations of Red " China, as it is called. He expressed the belief that the people of China, having elected their government in their own way, were perfectly entitled to do so, and he felt that it was an insult to a great nation to deprive it of a seat in the councils of the world. ' We of the Australian Labour party agree with that, because we stand firmly behind the United Nations. Quips have been made to the effect that there is no defence policy in the Australian Labour party. I remind honorable senators opposite that the first plank of our policy is that Australia is an integral part of . the British Commonwealth of Nations. I was present at the historic conference in London when the name " British Commonwealth of Nations " replaced the term " British Empire ". This change, which was not to everybody's liking, was made so that India and various other great British dominions could retain their membership of the Commonwealth of Nations when they gained, their independence. When the Australian Labour party appealed to ' America for assistance during World War II., it was called pro-American and anti-British. To-day, it is being described as anti-American. We are not anti-anything at all, but we are pro-Australian. In order to remain an integral part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, Australia has to be" properly defended. Consequently, our hope for the future lies also in continued and active membership in the United Nations organization. To some people, the main functions of the United Nations organization are concerned with the prospects of war, and things of that kind. How many people appreciate the great, work that is carried on by the United Nations in days of peace? Among those who helped to frame the charter of the United Nations at the conference in San Francisco in 1945, was the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt),** the man whom people decry to-day, the man whom I was proud to see as President of the United Nations at a General Assembly in Paris in 1948. Very few people appreciate the vast amount of work that is performed by the United Nations," apart altogether from work in connexion with defence. I have seen something of the problems concerning human relationships which the organization has had to face. I remember being present when a discussion was being held with regard to Greek children who had been taken from their homes into Yugoslavia and other Communist satelite countries. There I heard the man who to-day is branded as being proCommunist, give a decision on that question which was against the Communists, and which was accepted by all parties. Regardless of the political opinions held by honorable senators, I think that they would have been as thrilled as I was to see a matter which had occupied the attention of the political committee for days, solved very satisfactorily in a few minutes by the President of the United Nations at that time, who happens to be the present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. The part that he played in the formation of the United Nations cannot be denied. My friend, the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator McLeay),** knows how hardworking the right honorable gentleman was, and the influence -he had on the original charter of the United Nations. The charter of the United Nations does not apply to us merely because we are Europeans or of European descent. It applies to all people, irrespective of the colour of their skin or the place in which they were born. We tend to forget, in these days, that, geographically, Australia is an Asiatic country, despite the European origin of our culture and so {: type="a" start="a"} 0. We are a country of Europeans in an Asiatic environment. We fail to understand the problems of the Asiatic people, and they fail to understand the problems of the Australian people. That is why we on this side of the chamber think that there must be more conferences. We must get more and more around the conference table with these people as our equals. We have already sent teams to the various Colombo plan nations, in order to help them with their rehabilitation, because the United Nations organization appreciates that world peace is best promoted by helping to solve the great problems of Asiatic countries - poverty, disease and hunger. One of the solutions of the Com- munist problem in Asia comes down to the simple word "food". I say that with all sincerity, because I have seen, in some Asiatic countries, the terrible conditions under which people are living. Those of us who have decent homes and three meals a day, who are decently clad and enjoy amenities which we regard as necessities in our lives, cannot imagine the conditions under which many thousands of our fellow men in Asiatic countries have to live. Our first task as a nation is not so much to send troops into a country as to send help, to assist with its problems and to help it towards a better way of life. Incidentally, despite what **Senator Laught** said, I do not think than an army of occupation has ever been popular with the people of the country it occupied after it has left that country. These are things which are vital in our make-up. . Those of us who lost dear ones in the last war - and I have two sisters who are war widows - wish to see Australia properly defended. We do not speak as pacifists or anything like that. I recall reading some wise words spoken by that very great man, the late King George V. When he opened the Disarmament Conference in 1928, His late Majesty spoke these prophetic words - >If you prepare for war, then war you shall have. That is very true. It is like giving a child a toy gun. The first thing he wants to do is to have a go at something. Between that attitude and the attitude of complete unpreparedness there is a middle course'. We all realize that that is so. We also realize that Australia must never again be left in the unprepared state it was in when the full fury of war struck us in 1941. In that year, something happened that could happen again if this proposal of the Government is put into effect. Our men were fighting overseas when Australia was attacked. They had to come back from the Middle East because they were the only veterans with battle experience that we had. The difficulty was to get them back. I remember when the ships bringing them back were approaching our. shores how worried was the Prime Minister of the day, **Mr. Curtin.** That worry almost put him into his grave a few years earlier than the war ultimately did. Those men had to come from Ceylon without a convoy, and they were brought home without the loss of a single life. When the news came that they had reached Fremantle, there was a different expression on the face of **Mr. Curtin.** Whoever is charged with the destinies of Australia, whatever his political colour, lias to bear a heavy burden in time of war. Any man who is chosen to be Prime Minister of a country must have certain qualities to fit him for that post, and he would not be a man if he did not feel on himself the whole burden of the lives of those who have gone forth to battle to keep the country free. We do not want to see the conflagration of 1939-45 repeated. I recall that **Senator Kendall** said in this chamber last year that if one Australian soldier set foot on Chinese soil, there was likely to be a third world war. We have heard so much about the Chinese in Malaya that I am inclined to believe that if the Government could give this matter some further consideration, it might find some other way to assist the people of Malaya in the fight against communism instead of sending troops. The decision to send Australian troops to Malaya was reached long before the matter came into the Parliament. The press informed the world weeks ago that ships were going to Malaya with Australian ground forces in August. At that stage the Parliament had not been consulted. The result of the Government's proposal is a foregone conclusion, but honorable senators on this side of the chamber suggest that.it would have been more courteous if the Parliament had been given an opportunity to discuss this matter before the a announcement was made in the press. Several misrepresentations have been made in this Senate, wittingly or unwittingly, during this debate. **Senator Laught** talked about the lotus years of 1945-49. He stated that nothing had been done to build up our Department of External Affairs. Those who were not members of the Parliament at that time were old enough to read the newspapers. They must still remember the criticism that was levelled at the Minister for External Affairs at that time, the present Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt),** every time he appointed an officer to that department, even if it were only an office boy. Whenever a representative of Australia was sent abroad, it was said that **Dr. Evatt** was enlarging his department for his own aggrandisement. To-night, honorable senators have been told that the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** is a great Minister because he has established many posts abroad. I give the Minister credit for everything he has done, but his achievements would not have been possible if the foundations had not been laid by his predecessor. When **Dr. Evatt** took office as Minister for External Affairs, there were only fifteen Australian representatives in various diplomatic posts throughout the world. When that number was increased, the criticisms that **Dr. Evatt** suffered were in contrast to the bouquets that have been handed to the present Minister for External Affairs over the expansion of the department. **Senator Gorton** gave some statistics with regard to terrorist activities in Malaya. If the figures are as low as he stated, and the terrorist menace has been reduced to such small proportions in recent months, why is it necessary to send Australian ground forces into Malaya? I ask that question quite seriously because I believe we have to try to make friends with the people of South-East Asia. Knowing the enmity that has been aroused in other countries by armies of occupation, no matter how friendly they may be, or what benefit may ultimately be derived from their presence, I believe that there is still a feeling in Malaya against this proposal. I should like the Government to reconsider this matter. The Government should tell honorable senators why Australian ground forces are going to Malaya. Have they been asked for by the British Government or the people of Malaya themselves? We should like to know the background. **Senator Gorton** referred to the employment of the native-born Malayans in the Public Service. I pay a tribute to the Department of Territories for the work it is doing in this regard, particularly in Nauru, where native-born people are being trained to do work in the Public Service. In the post office at Nauru, there was an Australian postmaster with a Nauruan assistant. Quite recently, I had a message from the postmaster who had returned to Perth. Bte told me that he was not going back to Nauru because his native assistant was now the postmaster. Various jobs in the Public Service are being filled as quickly as possible by the natives, and all that has been done in the few years since World War II. ended. That being so, surely there could have been more rapid growth of that practice in Malaya during our occupation of that territory? I commend the Colombo plan. I have met many Asiatic students, including those v/ho attend our universities. They are excellent ambassadors for Australia, providing we can give them decent living conditions while they are in Australia, and I hope that the Department of External Affairs will assist with the building of an international house for students at the University of Western Australia, and not only at the large universities in the eastern States. Western Australia is vitally concerned in these matters because it is very close to the crowded countries of Asia. In Western Australia, we meet many students and business people passing through to the eastern States. They get their first impression of Australia from Western Australia, and I am happy to say that large numbers of students have been welcomed at the university and places of higher education in Western Australia. That picture is repeated over and over again in the various universities and other institutions of Australia, and I suggest that the young men and women who are coming from those countries to Australia and learning at our universities, schools and hospitals, will be much better ambassadors for Australia in South-East Asia in the fight against communism, in which we all join, than any battalions of Australian ground troops. {: #subdebate-16-0-s6 .speaker-K2S} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia -- This debate on foreign affairs has been one of the most important and enlightening that we have had in the Senate for some time/ In taking part in it, I wish not only to compliment the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on hismost reasoned statement, but alsoto support whole-heartedly all the suggestions that are contained in it. Honorable senators will recall that the PrimeMinister made five points very clear. I think it is good for us to remember thosefive points while we are thinking of our foreign policy. The first point was that Australia must constantly seek for peace,, provided that peace can be had with justice to all. The second point was that if we do become involved in a war, wemust be sure that we have powerful and willing friends. Thirdly, the PrimeMinister declared that Australia must not only defend its rights, but must be prepared to defend the rights of others also. His fourth point was that we must not only defend our own living standards, but must also give every assistance to thoseother nations which are struggling towards a standard of living that we havebeen privileged to enjoy for many years. His fifth point was that we "are not tointerfere with the internal affairs of other people, so long as they adhere to the same principle. All those points comewell within the scope of the United Nations Charter. I was very pleased to hear SenatorTangney speak about the work of the United Nations organization. So manyhonorable senators have referred to thework of the United Nations as though its principal task was the avoidance of war. I admit that the prevention of war is oneof the outstanding ideas of the United Nations organization, and in the short period of ten years, in which it has been able to function with great difficulty in many places, it has prevented the outbreak of a third world war so far. Weare all hopeful that it will still be able to prevent such a catastrophe. Recently, I was privileged to see muchof the work of the United Nations organization in the Asian countries. I was particularly impressed with the work of the World Health Organization in Malaya, Hong Kong and the Philippines. There I saw wonderful experiments beingcarried out by the United Nations organization in helping the people of the Philippines to improve their diet by the- provision of more proteins. One of their experiments was the introduction of the telecarpia fish into the rice-fields. The fish are growing while the rice is maturing, and the people of the Philippines are enjoying a much more balanced diet. I was pleased to hear **Senator Tangney** pay a tribute to the work of the United Nations organization, apart from the prevention of war. The outstanding idea in the United Nations Charter is the emphasis on tolerance, and the principle that all nations should try to trust one another and practise co-operation and conciliation. Force and war are always mentioned as a last resort. It was complete nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna)** to state, as he did in a discursive and futile speech, that a proposal to send supporting troops to Malaya will be received with disfavour by the people of that country. It may be that a section of the people will so regard the decision, hut they will be that section which is causing all the trouble there to-day. They are being supported by an outside influence, the Communist party. They, not the ordinary people of Malaya, may regard the decision with disfavour. I was in Malaya recently, and while there I took the opportunity to talk with numbers of people in different walks of life. Many times I was asked "When will Australia be sending military aid to help u3 to build up our defensive preparations against the Communists ? ". It would appear that that branch of the Labour party to which the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber belongs fails to appreciate the value of defensive preparation. The honorable senator knows that the Communist objective to come to Australia was planned before 1924. The Communist proposed to come down through IndoChina and Malaya right on to Australia. I fully support the statement of the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** that this Government was succeeding in no mean degree in its efforts to repair the damage that had been done to Australia by the previous Labour Government in relation to South-East Asia. The present Government, by its vigorous foreign policy, has established friendly relations with Asian countries. Seato has given these people confidence that they did not enjoy before. Their morale was low because they had seen one country after another invaded by the Communists and brought under the Communist yoke. I had a very poignant example of this when saying farewell to some of the delegates from Viet Nam who attended the seventh Pan-Pacific conference in the Philippines recently. There were three delegates from Viet Nam among the 148 delegates from 21 different places in the Pacific. Many of them spoke sadly when they told of their experiences in their own countries. In saying farewell to those delegates I expressed the pleasure which we had experienced in meeting them and learning of the progress that had taken place towards literacy in their country. We spoke of the wonderful help given by the United Nations to improve the health of their people. Finally, I expressed the hope that we would meet again soon. With sad faces and voices full of emotion they said, " Our country is so torn, we are so overloaded with refugees trying to escape from Communist China, we are so surrounded by Communists that the days of our lives are almost numbered ". When one comes up personally against that situation one cannot but feel that the people of a country such as that in which we are privileged to live should regard it as a privilege to be able to send help in the defensive preparations of other countries. No loyal Australian who thinks of these things could possibly offer anything hut the most wholehearted support to the underlying principles of the Prime Minister's statement. Of course *we must keep peace with justice to all; of course we must defend our own rights and the rights of others; of course we must maintain a high standard of living in this country; and of course we must refrain from meddling in the affairs of other nations. The Leader of the Opposition and **Senator O'Flaherty** spoke of conciliation. Can they honestly accuse the present Government of not having used conciliation or of not adopting a good-neighbour policy towards the peoples of South-East Asia? I think we have played an honorable part in connexion with the Colombo plan, and I thank the Minister for External Affairs for the extension of that plan to include the granting of scholarships to people from, Asian countries. Nineteen nations are taking part in the Colombo plan, which has already cost Australia £31,000,000. The extension of the plan to include the granting of scholarships will mean much to these countries, and I can think of nothing better or of a more conciliatory and helpful nature than this part of the plan. The technical assistance given under the plan is greatly valued in these countries. On numerous occasions while I was abroad I was asked to explain the Colombo plan, and in some places that I visited I saw examples of the technical assistance that the plan provided. I saw many harvesters and other up-to-date farm machinery which had been supplied under the plan being used to increase production. When I compared modern methods with the old methods of tilling the ground I could not but feel that Australia's name did indeed stand high with these people. Numerous treaties such as the Anzus pact have had a good effect on Asian nations. They are helping to give economic and social status to their peoples, and they are evidence of our desire to help them to meet the common danger of aggression. **Senator Benn** asked why we were so concerned about Asia. Surely the honorable senator knows that the centre of the world has moved into the Pacific. In an illuminating speech **Senator Gorton** spoke of the gradual dis appearance of Europe as the centre of things in our world, and of how Australia was becoming the strategic point in the Pacific. That is the reason why it is necessary that we should be friendly with the peoples of Asia. Anything that we can do which can be of help to them in the field of education, economics and social services should be done, and done gladly. It should be superfluous to say that our foreign policy must be largely confined to the Pacific. We are indeed fortunate that we have been able to keep the firm friendship of both the United States of America and of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. **Senator Tangney** need have no fear that Australia will wish to depart from that policy. I consider it to be most important that we should be prepared to co- operate with Britain and America in helping those Asian people in their endeavour to preserve their freedom and to enjoy a democratic way of life. **Senator Laught** touched on another important matter connected with our foreign policy. I refer to trade with those South-East Asian countries. I was able, while I was in the Philippines, to talk with the VicePresident of the Philippines Republic about the meat industry of Australia. We all realize that Australia must find new outlets for many of its products. The population of the Philippines numbers 22,000,000 in the 7,000 islands that form the republic, and they are great beefeaters. Everywhere I went I talked about the excellence of Australian beef. The present very good market there for our beef is one of the effects of the last war. because when the Japanese invaded the Philippines they took a terrible toll of the caribou, which, like the buffalo, is an animal that is used both as a working beast in the fields and as a source of meat. The President of the Republic of the Philippines, Ramon Magsaysay, has forbidden the slaughter of any of the remaining caribou, and this fact provides a wonderful opportunity for expansion of Australia's beef trade with the Philippines. I think that **Senator Laught's** SuK gestion that our trade with the peoples of South-East Asia be increased must he taken into consideration when we are dealing with our foreign policy. I consider that the Prime Minister's statement has made the people of Australia, as it has made all of us, think very deeply about friendship with the Asian peoples and of the help that we shall be able to give them in their fight against communism. I saw the refugee problem in Hong Kong. I have never seen such poverty in my life as I saw in my visits to places in South-East Asia. There was ostentatious wealth on one side, and desperate poverty on the other. In the city of Manilla alone there are 1,250,000 unemployed who are practically starving. When **Senator Gorton** said that these South-East Asian countries were police states, he was not exaggerating, because all the time the conference was sitting in the university of Quezon it was guarded by police. Everywhere along the highways were posses of armed soldiers: The reason was the Communist infiltration into those islands. It is no exaggeration to say that the sending of our troops to Malaya will he of tremendous help in the defence preparations being made to stem the Communist advance, and to prevent the Communists from actually landing on our doorstep, where they almost are at present. I commend the Prime Minister's statement on foreign affairs, and heartily support the sending of our troops to Malaya for the purpose of defence preparation. {: #subdebate-16-0-s7 .speaker-K0C} ##### Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales -- I regard most debates on foreign affairs as important, and I agree with **Senator Gorton** that this debate is particularly important. Each such debate we have seems to become more important than its predecessor, because somehow events in Asia seem to be crowding closer to us, and more of us are becoming aware of the problems of this great land mass to the north-west of Australia. Our Asian neighbours are close to us, and it is important that we chart our course in such a manner that, as far as is humanly possible, we can remain friendly, and more than friendly, with those people, with whom our lot it cast for ever and for ever. During this debate I intend, perhaps not to-night, but when the debate is resumed at a later sitting, to cover a number of points that interested me particularly. The debate to-night has centred in the provision of Australian land forces to Malaya. That is a most interesting thing to think about. Government supporters to-night have tried to make out a case in favour of sending these forces. On the other hand the Opposition, particularly **Senator Grant,** has shown that the position i3 not quite all it is claimed to be. I have very definite views on this subject. My approach to all these matters is as simple as I can make it. Perhaps my approach is a selfish one, because I ask myself, "What advantage is in this for me ?" By " me ", in this case, I mean " Australia ". Frankly I cannot see the advantage of providing these forces, particularly at this time of cold war. If that war, to keep the simile moving, warms up, or heats up, the S.- [fi] Labour party will consider the position as. it arises. Our attitude to the. Korean war was clear, because the United Nations' action in that connexion was simple and clear. So is our attitude to Malaya, because we cannot see what advantage there is to Australia in sending token forces, which is all they will be; to Malaya. I find it hard to believe the figures that I have heard in this debate which show that there are more than 350,000 police and army men in. Malaya at the moment. Yet we are going, to add another few thousand to that huge number, for what purpose I do not know. Perhaps it is to be a training expedition. That is the only value I can see in it. I am subject to correction, but I understand, that eU. experience with our air squadrons in Malaya was that there was not a single casualty in all the years that they were there. It was a very nice set-up for them, but whether it did Australia any good is open to question. This proposal, announced as it was when a conference of Asian and African nations was in progress at Bandung, poses the important question of timing. I wonder what the reaction of the associated AfroAsian representatives who met at Bandung is to the proposal to send Australian troops to Malaya. Can it be good? 1 cannot imagine that it can be good. There is no question in my mind that the conference at Bandung provided evidence of a new order with which we must live. For the first time in the written history of the world there occurred a gathering of representatives of the African and Asian nations. It has been suggested that the conference might not have been a success. My opinion is that, from the point of view of the people who called the conference and attended it, it was an outstanding success. It has. shown the world that there is a new order to be faced in Asia and Africa. Whether we like it or not, there is no question that the days of colonialism are over. Colonialism is a. page that has been written and turned over. It is a page which I do not think will ever be written again, unless, of course, it is written, as it could easily be written, under the. new imperialism of Communist China or of Communist Russia. But the old colonialism about which I am speaking is undoubtedly moving rapidly into history. Only in the last few weeks an election was held in Singapore. My own opinion is that it was very long delayed. The same statesmanship which kept India a nd Pakistan and Ceylon in the Commonwealth, . has, in my opinion, not been evidenced in Singapore and Malaya. I shall qualify a little what I say about Malaya because in my mind, it is definitely not in the same position as Singapore. A substantial part of the population of Singapore is highly educated. There is a high degree of literacy in that city. But the leading business men and educationalists, and, in fact, the leaders of all sections of the community, are not British. They are not even white. They are Chinese. Indians or Malays. Approximately 80 per cent, of the population of Singapore is Chinese. There would be no trouble in conferring some form of self-government on those people to whom Singapore is home and whose future is hound up in that city. A belated step has been taken, but it is rather a short step because the right of absolute veto has been left with the governor of Singapore. However, the first step is usually the hardest to take and, now that it has been taken, I suggest that the next step will be quicker and perhaps longer. It is quite wrong to think that ground troops will be able to play an effective part in Malaya. I do not know whether T am right in saying this, but my own thought is that our men will have very little contact with the terrorist forces, and that their losses, therefore, will be very small. The guerilla warfare is being waged against civilians as far as possible. The number of guerillas who have been killed, wounded or captured over the years is remarkably small. So, it is not a matter of fighting pitched battles. Our Forces are going to Malaya mainly for propaganda purposes, and here is where I completely disagree with the Government. The propaganda that will result from this action by Australia, will not help us at all, and I do not think it will help the fight against communism. It is more likely to do our cause very great harm. Earlier to-day, **Senator O'Flaherty** quoted from a magazine a view expressed by a Malayan student in this country about the Government's proposals. Perhaps that is only opinion; but I am inclined to think it is the opinion of many Asian students in this country. The view was that the sending of Australian troops to Malaya would render a grave disservice to the people of that country, and would be a stimulus to communism in that part of the world. Associated as this proposal is with the Bandung conference and present-day Asian problems generally, I think the worst possible time has been chosen for the move. My approach is the approach of one who wants the best for his own country. To my mind the proposal to send a token force now and two divisions should the war heat up is completely impracticable. Our defence problem lies primarily in our own country. 1 do not mean that we should not be prepared to move our forces elsewhere in the event of war, but, at the moment, our main responsibility is to make internal preparations. On this score I take the Government to task. Our defence achievements in the last three or four years have been very small indeed when one considers the tremendous amount of money that has been spent. What can we see for our money? A few extra barracks. The Air Force to-day is admittedly the most important arm of defence and offence. What can we see for the millions that have been spent on aircraft production ? The Canberra bomber is coming off the assembly line very slowly. That project was inaugurated by me as Minister for Supply in the Chifley Government, in 1949. That is how long it has been going. At the same time, negotiations had been almost completed for the production in Australia of a certain British fighter aircraft, but nothing more has been heard of that proposal. The American Sabre fighter has been developed instead, and it, too, is coming off the production line very slowly. The Canberra bomber is already outmoded, and the Sabre is rapidly becoming outmoded. Production of both those aircraft is so slow that if in a sudden emergency we had to equip our own air force, our achievements would necessarily be very small, indeed. So, I say that, before turning our attention to Malaya, we should look to our own internal defence position. What mobility have we in our armed forces ? Can we move large bodies of men quickly? If we cannot, we should be making preparations to enable us to do so. In modern warfare, mobility is the essence of success. That view is strongly supported by the United States of America, which has refused to commit its forces anywhere in Asia, in spite of many requests that it should do so. The Americans say that no one knows where they will strike. Their forces are mobile, and their use will depend upon world events. Australia could well take notice of that example. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted ; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 139 {:#debate-17} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Senator O'Sullivan)** agreed to - That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday next, at 3 p.m. {: .page-start } page 139 {:#debate-18} ### PAPERS The following papers were pre sented . - Atomic Energy Act- Australian Atomic Energy Commission - Second Annual Report, and financial accounts, for year 1953-54. Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Seventh Annual Report of the Chief Judge, for year ended 30th September, 1954. Elections, 1954 - Statistical Returns (in summarized form ) in relation to the House of Representatives Elections 1954, for the several States and Territories. Lands Acquisition Act - Land, &c, acquired for Defence purposes - Gan Gan (Fort Stephens), New South Wales. Newcastle, New South Wales. Norfolk Island Act - Ordinances - 1055 - No. 1 - Bean Seeds and Bean Plants. Regulations - 1955 - Bean Seeds and Bean Plants. Public Service Act - Appointments - Department - Interior- C. S. McKay. Trade and Customs - W. J. Schopfhauser. Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 April 1955, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1955/19550428_senate_21_s5/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant