Senate
28 November 1962

24th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1531

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service inform me whether a copy of the agenda arranged for the International Labour Organization conference now being held in Melbourne is available to the Senate? Can the Minister also inform me to what extent conventions decided upon at past I.L.O. conferences have been implemented by the Commonwealth Government and the six State governments?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– There would be very many conventions to which the Commonwealth Government and the six State governments would need to accede. I cannot tell the honorable senator which ones have been acceded to and which ones have not been acceded to. I can certainly obtain that information for him. The agenda for the I.L.O. conference would be available to any honorable senator who cared to obtain it, but I am prepared to obtain it for the honorable senator.

page 1531

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration been directed to a newspaper report that a woman migrant went on a six-days hunger strike at the Bonegilla camp last week? Will the Minister examine the accuracy of the statement that a teaching position in Australia was promised to her husband by immigration officials and then refused him on his arrival here? Will the Minister inform the Senate what facilities are available at Bonegilla for lessons in the English language?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– I saw the report referred to by the honorable senator. I asked the Department of Immigration to give me some information on this matter because I felt that the report would attract the attention of an honorable senator on this side of the chamber. I have been advised that the report in the Melbourne “Sun” referred to a Belgian migrant woman at Bonegilla who threatened to go on a hunger strike. We understand that the primary problem associated with her husband’s appointment as a teacher was that his application was not lodged until after the closing date set by the education authorities for appointments in the coming academic year. It is believed now that the Education Department is reassessing the prospects of finding him employment at the beginning of the academic year in 1963.

With reference to the teaching of the English language, the Department of Immigration says that English training classes are operating constantly at the Bonegilla centre. These classes are intended to provide the migrant with a minimum standard of English for taking his place in the community. This standard, obviously, would not be high enough to equip Mr. Bruynooghe for the school-teaching profession, if in fact he lacks English as a language at present. The length of time a migrant spends at Bonegilla, and the facilities for language training which could be utilized there, naturally could not enable him to achieve anything like the required standard.

page 1531

QUESTION

MELBOURNE AIRPORT

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation received or seen a report by the senior health inspector of the City of Keilor in Victoria in which many unsavoury and unhygienic conditions in the food premises at the Melbourne airport are revealed? If the Minister has not received or seen the report, will he be able to obtain a copy of it? If he cannot do so, I can make one available to him. Having perused the report, will the Minister use whatever power and influence he has to have these premises conform to the standards of hygiene demanded by the State health authorities?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The City of Keilor authority was good enough to send me a copy of the report to which the honorable senator has referred. As he has said, the report alleged deficiencies in the standards of hygiene at the kitchen of one of the airlines, and in another part of the terminal building occupied by one of the lessees. I took immediate action to direct the attention of my department to this matter and I have asked for an immediate investigation and report. The honorable senator can be assured that if the allegations are sustained, appropriate action will be taken to see that the health standards of the City of Keilor are complied with.

page 1532

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation by reminding him that earlier this month, after the irresponsible stranding of 66 Australian and New Zealand tourists at Biak by a small German charter airline, the Commonwealth Department of Civil Aviation lodged a strong protest with the Government of West Germany. Has any reply been received to that protest? If so, what action will be taken to ensure that there is no repetition of this occurrence?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

- Mr. President, it is true that the Government lodged the strongest possible protest with the Govern ment of West Germany over this matter. However, we have not yet received a reply. I take this opportunity to issue a Warning to Australian tourists in the United Kingdom and Europe not to be duped into another Biak incident. Recently, I was advised by our representatives in London that Mikrotours, the London tourist firm that organized the ill-advised charter flight to which the honorable senator has referred, published an itinerary for another charter flight from Southend to Sydney, via Hong Kong, on 10th December. We, of course, do not want a repetition of the earlier unhappy incident, nor can the Australian Government always be expected to go to the rescue of every Australian tourist who is duped and dumped in such circumstances by irresponsible firms, whoever they may be.

Recently, I received further information about the earlier charter flight, and it revealed a strange story of deception. As I told the Senate several weeks ago, the German airline Continentale Deutsche applied to my department last month to operate a charter flight for Mikrotours from Southend in the United Kingdom to Sydney. We promptly refused the application because it did not comply with Australia’s well-established charter regulations. I have now received further information from London that the authorities there, whose charter regulations are similar to ours, also refused Continentale Deutsche permission to operate the charter flight from Southend. However, the German operator enlisted the aid of a British independent airline to fly the 66 passengers from Southend to Rotterdam.

Permission for this flight was obtained from the United Kingdom authorities by representing the 66 passengers as Chinese cooks. The German operator then flew the members of the party from Rotterdam to Biak where it unceremoniously dumped them after unsuccessfully trying to get Qantas Empire Airways Limited to fly the party from Biak to Sydney, by again misrepresenting the passengers, but this time as a ship’s crew. This was, of course, a blatant piece of double deception deliberately designed to evade not only our own charter regulations, but also those of the United Kingdom.

Mr. President, I should mention finally that our charter regulations, although strict, do not prevent legitimate charter group travel. They are designed to protect the travelling public from incidents such as this. I might add that both ourselves and the United Kingdom authorities are keeping a close watch to prevent any repetition of such incidents.

page 1532

QUESTION

COAL

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for National Development see in the press last week the report, emanating from the University of Sydney, of a development in relation to the lifting of coal to the surface by hydraulic power? If the Minister saw the report, is he able to say what influence this process could have on the coal-fields of Australia?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I did see the report, which I read with a great deal of interest. I have not had any report on the matter from the Joint Coal Board; and so that we shall not overlook it, I suggest that Senator Arnold put the question on the notice-paper. I shall then get a report from the board.

page 1532

QUESTION

BLUE PEAS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Customs and Excise say whether any Tasmanian farmers’ organization has approached the Minister for Trade with a view to securing further protection against the importation of blue peas into Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I know that various farmers’ organizations in Tasmania have been keeping a close watch on imports into Australia of green peas, but I have no knowledge whether the processors or farmers’ organizations have made any request to the Department of Trade.

Senator Lillico:

– The question was in regard to blue peas.

Senator HENTY:

– I am sorry. I thought that the honorable senator referred to green peas. I have no knowledge of any development in regard to blue peas.

page 1533

QUESTION

TYPHOID

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister acting for the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that some twenty cases of typhoid have been discovered on a station near Alice Springs? If so, has the cause or carrier of the disease been discovered? Was the disease brought in from overseas and has it broken out in Alice Springs itself? What steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the disease?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– There has been an outbreak of typhoid fever in the vicinity of Alice Springs. The carrier has been identified as a man who had recently returned from Greece, and who had been in contact with typhoid fever. On his return, he placed it in circulation, as it were, mostly among aborigines in the vicinity of Alice Springs. Two nursing sisters have been sent to Maryvale Station, where the disease broke out, and the people are being treated as clinical cases of typhoid fever. The original contact has been placed in the infectious diseases hospital at Adelaide, where he is being treated. One of the departmental aircraft based at Alice Springs is flying from there to Adelaide today to pick up supplies of drugs for Alice Springs, and the departmental aircraft based at Darwin is flying from Darwin to Alice Springs with supplies. Also, a campaign of vaccination, on a voluntary basis, against typhoid fever has been commenced in Alice Springs.

page 1533

QUESTION

BUDGERIGARS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I should like to ask the Minister for Customs and Excise a question without notice. I require some slight elucidation of matters relating to the export of budgerigars. Does the Minister know of a budgerigar breeder of Sandgate, Queensland, named Payne who has written a number of letters to me? Is he aware that budgerigar breeding is an industry which once engaged the attention of 10,000 citizens in Queensland, according to Mr. Payne? Was action taken by the Department of Customs and Excise which prohibited the export of these birds? Why was this action taken? Was it to save the budgerigars from extinction? How can the export of aviary-bred budgerigars affect adversely the continued existence of the bush-bred budgerigar?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Government has prohibited the export of Australian fauna except on a strictly zoo-to-zoo basis or for scientific purposes. The honorable senator asks why this action was taken. The action was taken after a long campaign during which evidence was supplied to the Government of extraordinary losses of birds which were exported but never reached their destination. It was decided that the export of all native fauna of Australia would be prohibited. The honorable senator asks why this prohibition applies to aviary-bred budgerigars. At the present time, it is impossible to determine whether budgerigars are aviary-bred or otherwise. Is is very difficult indeed to distinguish between a budgerigar bred in an aviary and a budgerigar bred in the bush, and the prohibition stands.

page 1533

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the

Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate of the results of the tests carried out during the winter months in the vicinity of the Australian base at Wilkes, in Antarctica, by a glaciologist of the Australian Antarctic Expedition, to assist in the determination of the feasibility or otherwise of the construction of an airfield to service Australian bases in Antarctica - a matter that was referred to in the last annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– A report has been submitted, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of it to answer the honorable senator’s question offhand. I will see what information can be made available to the honorable senator without delay.

page 1534

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIR TERMINAL

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Having regard to the programme of aerodrome extension announced by the Government during the week before last, can the Minister for Civil Aviation indicate the likely extensions to the Adelaide airport, with particular reference to passenger accommodation?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Prior to the announcement of the comprehensive airport extension policy a week or two ago, I had already given a reply, during the debate on the Estimates and Budget Papers 1962-63, to a question in the Senate, in which I said that an amount of money - I think it was £50,000 - had been made available in the programme to cover the extension of the terminal building at the Adelaide airport. In addition to that amount, which will be spent on the Adelaide airport buildings, another amount of somewhat similar magnitude is to be spent at Adelaide on runways. The honorable member will be pleased to know that the amount required to be spent on runways at Adelaide is not great because the Adelaide airport is already a well-developed airport.

page 1534

QUESTION

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry refers to the disabilities of Kangaroo Island settlers. Is the Minister able to indicate the extent of Commonwealth assistance that is to be given to the 160 soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island, following discussions between the Minister for Primary Industry and those settlers at a meeting held at Parndana, Kangaroo Island, on 9th November, 1962?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I am not in a position to give that information now, but I will get it and see that the honorable senator has it as soon as possible.

page 1534

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Senator WRIGHT:
through Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice -

Will the Minister table in the Senate, for the information of all honorable senators, the letters which have been exchanged between the Minister for Trade and Sir Leslie Melville and which he indicated he was willing to make available to the Leader of the Opposition?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Trade has informed me as follows: -

The papers to which the honorable senator refers have been tabled in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

page 1534

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator MCCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen the statement appearing on page 74 of the supplementary report of the Auditor-General that the Treasury inspection and Internal Audit Section in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea remained considerably below strength throughout the year and performed little inspection or internal audit work?
  2. Is it a fact that only two of eleven positions on the approved establishment were occupied throughout the year, and that the occupants of those positions were engaged mainly on special assignments?
  3. Will the Government see that steps are taken forthwith to overcome this obvious staff inadequacy, which must be seriously affecting the internal auditing of public moneys?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The special assignments upon which the occupants of the two positions were engaged were assignments which came within the scope of their normal duties and they were carried out at the expense of routine auditing. So far as was practicable the routine auditing was carried out, on an agency basis, by staff of the sub-treasuries of the Administration.
  3. As the Auditor-General mentioned in his general comments - also on page 74 of his supplementary report - there is a serious shortage of academically qualified and experienced accounting officers. The Administration has found it very difficult to recruit staff with qualifications suitable for its internal audit positions but steps are being taken to meet the situation by alternative starling arrangements.

page 1534

QUESTION

TRADE BALANCES

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Relative to the trade balance figures for the September quarter, is it a fact that, on the figures given, the trading deficit for the quarter was approximately £1,000,000?
  2. If (he only items taken into consideration had been exports and imports, would the deficit have been £96,000,000?
  3. Do the figures for the September quarter show that the value of exports in that period was the lowest since the December quarter of 1960 and that the value of imports was the highest since the March quarter of 1961?
  4. Are these figures compatible with the Government’s statement that it is improving the position of our overseas balances?
  5. Will the Treasurer explain the reference in the official statistics to a private foreign capital inflow, with balancing items, of £83,000,000 and indicate how that figure is made up?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. There was a deficit of approximately £1,000,000 in Australia’s balance of payments for the September quarter of 1962. This takes into account not only exports and imports but also other current transactions and all capital transactions. The deficit was reflected in a fall of £1,000,000 over the quarter in Australia’s international reserves.
  2. No. The value of imports (f.o.b.) in the September quarter of 1962 exceeded the value of exports (f.o.b.) in that quarter by £32,000,000.
  3. Yes. However, it should be noted that, for seasonal reasons, exports tend to be lower in the first than in the other quarters of a financial year. Further, the lower rate of importing between the March quarter of 1961 and the September quarter of the current year reflects the lower tempo of activity in the Australian economy during that period and the fact that stocks of imported commodities were then being drawn upon. With the rise in internal demand and business activity to the higher levels now prevailing some increase in imports was to be expected.
  4. Australia’s international reserves at the end of October, 1962, stood at £571,000,000 compared with £378,000,000 in the same month in 1961. Since October, 1961, however, repayment of the drawing made in April, 1961, from the International Monetary Fund has increased Australia’s second line reserves by £78,000,000. Taken together, first and second line reserves improved by £72,000,000 over the past twelve months.
  5. The figure of £83,000,000 for the inflow of private capital and the balancing item reflects a variety of transactions of a capital nature, together with any errors or omissions in estimates of all other items in the balance of payments. The largest component of this item is normally private overseas investment in companies in Australia. This investment cannot be identified on a quarterly basis, and it is not possible therefore to give details of it for the quarter. However, the amount attributed to an important component of such investment - income retained in Australia - was higher than in the previous quarter. The other main component of this item is “ leads and lags “ in payments for imports and receipts from exports. Although it is not possible to identify all such leads and lags, as noted in the statement accompanying the official statistics, the figure oi £83,000,000 includes an inflow of £17,000,000 as a result of transactions by the principal Australian marketing authorities. This largely reflects payments by mainland China in respect of wheat exported to that country in 1961-62.

page 1535

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT

Senator MCCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What was the amount of the legal costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the recent Air Court of Inquiry into the crash of the Viscount airliner in Botany Bay in 1961?
  2. What was the total length of sittings of the court?
  3. What was the cost of a complete copy of the transcript of proceedings?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The following answer is now supplied: -

  1. The legal costs incurred amounted to £12,910.
  2. Twenty-six sitting days.
  3. The department acquired a number of copies of the transcript at an average cost of £132 per copy.

page 1535

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator MURPHY:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. Is the Minister aware that the AuditorGeneral’s Supplementary Report for 1961-62 at page 73 severely criticizes the financial statements of the Electrical Undertakings Branch of the Department of Public Works of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, indicating that, as in previous years, the statements cannot be accepted as accurate and referring to errors and omissions and unsubstantiated asset values?
  2. In view of the fact that this financial maladministration has persisted for some years, what does the Government propose to do about it?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Territories has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. A register of assets for the Electrical Undertakings Branch is being prepared and is expected to be completed by 31st December, 1962. Electricity undertakings at present operated by the Administration will be taken over by a statutory authority in 1963. Operations will be on commercial lines and proper commercial accounts will be kept. This will overcome difficulties experienced in the past of preparing from records kept by the Administration on the usual cash basis, financial statements in memorandum form which are acceptable to the Auditor-General.

page 1536

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1961-62

Statement of Expenditure

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I lay on the table of the Senate the following paper: -

Advance to the Treasurer - Statement for the year 1961-62 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1961.

I ask for leave to submit a motion in relation to the paper.

Leave granted.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I move-

That consideration of the statement in

Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

I would remind honorable senators that the items included in the statement are the subject of a report by the Public Accounts Committee which was tabled and distributed in the Senate yesterday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1536

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Spooner) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Vincent be granted leave of absence for one month, on account of ill health.

page 1536

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1962

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to give the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory power to define its privileges, immunities and powers other than its legislative powers. It is the result of a resolution passed by the Legislative Council last year, requesting the Minister for Territories to promote and carry in the Commonwealth Parliament legislation to establish the powers of the Legislative Council to compel the attendance of witnesses, their submission to examination, the production of documents, &c, before the council or committees of the council. The history of the matter is that an elected member of the council brought down in 1960 a bill which purported to define the powers and privileges of the Legislative Council, its committees and members. When this bill was examined by our legal advisers, the view was taken that those provisions in the bill which purported to confer powers on the Legislative Council and its committees to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents went beyond the powers conferred on the Legislative Council by the Northern Territory, (Administration) Act to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. When this view was made known to the Legislative Council, those provisions were deleted. The resulting ordinance simply defined the privileges of the Legislative Council and of its committee and members. It was against this background that the Legislative Council carried the resolution to which I have referred.

The Government considers this request to be a reasonable one. The powers asked for are powers commonly possessed by legislatures. Senators will be aware that this Parliament, under the Constitution, has power to declare the powers, privileges and immunities of each House and of the members and committees of each House, and it is considered to be appropriate to give to the Legislative Council the necessary power to declare its own privileges, immunities and powers. In giving this power to the Legislative Council, however, it was thought proper to establish appropriate limits to the powers which it could confer on itself. These limits are, firstly, that the powers, privileges and immunities so conferred should not exceed those of the House of Commons and of its members and committees at the establishment of the Commonwealth. Senators will again recall that the Constitution provides that until Parliament otherwise declares the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of this Parliament are those of the House of Commons at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

In the second place, the power conferred upon the council is made subject to the other provisions of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act. This means that where this Parliament has in the act declared its will in relation to certain matters the Legislative Council may not make different provisions. For example, section 4ka of the act deals with the circumstances in which a person is disqualified from membership of the Legislative Council. Clearly the Legislative Council should not be empowered to make different provisions on disqualification of members.

There is some overlapping of the power which the bill seeks to confer and the power already given to the Legislative Council under section 4t of the act, which provides that the Legislative Council may make standing rules or orders with respect to the order and conduct of its business and proceedings. Ordinances might be made under the power proposed to be conferred by this bill in respect of matters which would come within the formula “ order and conduct of its business and proceedings “. Clause 3 of the bill, therefore, seeks to limit the power to make standing rules and orders by providing that the standing rules and orders so made shall not be inconsistent with a Jaw of the Territory. Thus the Legislative Council, under section 4t as proposed to be amended, could not make standing rules and orders which were inconsistent with an ordinance made under the power which clause 2 of the bill seeks to confer on the council. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1537

PATENTS BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th November (vide page 1504), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill was introduced into the Parliament by the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) on 12th April last. It was accompanied by a full explanatory memorandum. In contradistinction to the presentation of a recent bill, this bill is really a model of excellence in its presentation. It deals with procedural matters in relation to applications for and grants of patents. It has been under the consideration of interested parties for about six months and, as far as I know, it has created no furore. The AttorneyGeneral, however, in the light of discussions, has found it necessary or desirable to introduce some amendments to his bill. After consideration, and fortified by the opinion of people competent to advise, the Opposition offers no objection to the motion for the second reading of the bill. At the committee stage I shall move an amendment to the bill on a procedural matter.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– in reply - Because of the absence of opposition to this bill from any quarter in the Senate, it appears unnecessary for me to enlarge on the remarks that I made in my introductory second-reading speech.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Mr. Temporary Chairman, this is a long and technical bill. I am concerned with only one amendment to it. That amendment relates to a matter of procedure. I move -

After clause 24, insert the following new clause: - “ 24a. Section one hundred and forty-six of the Principal Act is amended by leaving out the words ‘ High Court ‘ (twice occurring) and inserting the words ‘ Commonwealth Industrial Court ‘.”

An amendment in similar terms was moved by the Opposition to the Patents Bill 1960. That amendment was rejected. The purpose of the amendment is to substitute the Commonwealth Industrial Court for the High Court of Australia as the appeal tribunal under the act. In the past five years not very many appeals have been made to the High Court under the act. According to the figures supplied, the number of appeals has been only thirteen. But the High Court is an exceedingly busy body. It is concerned with many important fields of jurisdiction. The Opposition believes that its work is unnecessarily burdened with specialized work of this type. In 1960 new powers were conferred on the Commonwealth

Industrial Court. First of all, it was entrusted with appeals against the revocation of licences issued on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board under the Broadcasting and Television Act and appeals against orders for the sharing of programmes. So, already that court has been made the repository of jurisdictions that formerly were placed elsewhere. It is rapidly becoming a general utility court.

The work of the Commonwealth Industrial Court in relation to the industrial jurisdiction does not fully occupy its time. The committee will recall that the judges of that court were made the judges of the Territories also under recent legislation. His Honour, Mr. Justice Spicer, who presides over the Commonwealth Industrial Court, has had very considerable experience in patent law. As Attorney-General in this chamber he was concerned with the revision of that law. In the course of a recent debate, the present Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) indicated that a change in the system of appeals in this and other jurisdictions was under active consideration. He expressed the hope that next year he would be able to introduce legislation to deal with patent appeals as well as other types of appeals. He did not put his intention in specific terms, but it is quite obvious that he intends to shift further appeals from their present status to the Commonwealth Industrial Court or some other court. In those circumstances, this amendment is moved more or less as a hurry-up or reminder to the AttorneyGeneral to get on with the job of relieving the High Court of the obligation to handle appeals in relation to the very technical matters that arise under patent law.

If the Opposition’s amendment were carried, certain consequential alterations to other sections of the act would be necessary. I have not bothered to particularize them all at this stage. I content myself with moving the amendment and supporting it with the comments that I have made already.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

.- The AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) has already indicated - and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has implied that he knows this - that he has some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. In the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral, the High Court of Australia might well be relieved of appeals on these particular subjects. But it is also true, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, that the High Court of Australia might well be relieved of the burden of many other matters. It would be the wish of the Government and of the Attorney-General not to do these things piecemeal, but rather to provide, by legislation or by other means, a general measure of relief for the High Court in regard to these matters.

The Attorney-General has had this whole matter under active consideration, and arrangements have now reached a very advanced stage. It is quite possible that the hurry-up given by the action of the Leader of the Opposition may even push the matter forward a little faster, although I cannot promise that. While we have full sympathy with the objectives of the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, as I believe these objectives will be met in a very short time, we would prefer not to accept the amendment to this bill, but rather to wait until this and other matters can be dealt with in one piece.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1538

LOAN BILL (No. 2) 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th November (vide page 1504), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The bill before the Senate is to authorize the raising of loans totalling £118,300,000 and, secondly, to appropriate that amount under two headings- £98,283,000 for Defence Services and £20,045,000 for the redemption of war loans. In other words, the bill authorizes the raising of the total sum and its distribution under two headings to the war services of the nation. Of course, as all honorable senators know, the amount represents the deficit for which the Government has budgeted in the current financial year. The amount will be raised in the terms of the bill from the Reserve Bank of Australia, and therefore it is an infusion of central bank credit into the national economy. This is being done, as the Government explained at the time of the Budget, to stimulate a deadened economy, a condition that the Opposition claims was precipitated by the Government’s drastic economic measures of November, 1960.

The obvious reason for the application of the proceeds of the contemplated loans to the Defence Services is to take them out of consideration by the Australian Loan Council. The Loan Council determines the allocation of loan moneys between the Commonwealth and the States for all purposes except defence. Money appropriated for defence is not within the competence of the Loan Council. The Commonwealth has that matter completely under its own jurisdiction, so quite obviously the arbitrary and technical allocation of this central bank credit to defence is for one purpose only.

Done that way, it adds to the confusion in the accounts of the Commonwealth to which I have adverted on many occasions from this place. Many times have I put a plea that there should be a clear separation of the accounts between expenditure on the ordinary annual services and on capital works and services, and that a capital item like the raising of loan money should be apportioned with clarity to those two heads - ordinary annual services and capital works. So far, that plea has fallen on deaf ears, and the appropriation of loan money to provide ordinary annual services in the Department of Defence is, in my view, one more factor that tends to wrap capital expenditure and ordinary expenditure into one conglomerate mass: It takes an accountant of experience and skill to untangle this mess when he does address his mind to it.

However, we think the infusion of this amount, in the economic circumstances of to-day, is necessary. We do not oppose the bill, but we do direct attention to the fact that when in November and December last year, the Australian Labour Party announced prior to the general elections that, if returned to office, it would have a supplementary budget to provide £100,000,000 of central bank credit to be used to restore full employment in a short period of time - I think twelve months was the time designated - we were told that the Labour Party was irresponsible, and that we would be starting off an inflationary upsurge that could do enormous damage.

We were berated by Government supporters throughout Australia on that point, and it is rather interesting now to see the Government, in its first Budget after that election, budgeting for a deficit of £118,300,000. Apparently, although it is invoking the aid of central bank credit, that is all to the good now, and this action will have no deleterious effects at all. Just a few months after the elections, the Government is no longer afraid of the inflationary effect of the infusion of central bank credit. It has actually exceeded the amount contemplated by the Australian Labour Party when, in an even greater state of depression last year, we proposed the injection of £100,000,000 raised from the Reserve Bank of Australia in the same way. However, what the Government is doing - belatedly, of course, as so often happens - is in line with Labour Party policy and thinking in the circumstances of the day. We have already addressed our minds and voices to the Budget and the deficit involved in it. That was debated when the Budget proposals were before us; so I indicate again that we are not opposing this measure.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise because this measure has twofold significance - one economic and the other constitutional. In regard to the economic issue, we have already passed a Budget which involves a deficit of £118,300,000, and the purpose of this measure is simply to finance that deficit. But it is well to take into regard the vacillations of the economic peaks and troughs of the last few years to see whether an alteration of taxation in one year and an infusion of central bank credit in another is really the proper way by which the greatest strength is engendered in our economic structure.

I believe it is proper that we should take this opportunity to remind ourselves of that matter because it has a bearing on certain factors which seem to be persistently neglected. I refer to the definition of the recent economic inquiry and the significant omission of any reference whatever to the impact made upon our economy by the processes of our industrial tribunals. That fact, having regard to the specific reference that was made - and made with deliberation - in 1960, fills me with consternation and acute disappointment, taking stock of the situation in which the inquiry begins.

This inquiry taking its context in the vicissitudes of our economy that this measure is financing, we ought to be aware, first, that the backwash of the recent e’ Sneers’ award is about to come in, in various inlets and bays of our economy. Secondly, we have a very definite bid for a three-weeks annual holiday structure throughout the economy. Thirdly, we have had a static basic wage now for some time. Those three factors alone should indicate the portents for next year under the heading of industrial adjustments. I want to make it quite clear and to underline it in the blackest words that I can use that it would not be proper to arrest that development, after it has occurred, by taxation. A more even movement of the economy must be found than an alternation one year of taxation with next year a propping of the economy with central bank credit, of which this is an example. But we are committed to this deficit. We passed the Budget, which was calculated on the basis of a deficit. As Senator McKenna says, the finance is to come from the central bank, by borrowing from the Reserve Bank.

So much for the economic aspect. The constitutional aspect needs to be assessed, too. If the Senate wants to discharge its functions, it needs more minds than mine to be directed to this aspect. We want to pursue deliberately a process whereby we know in advance to some degree where we are going. When we maintained a reasonable degree of responsibility in government in the States within their own constitutional sphere, we saw that the trend in central finance in the Federal Government was such that responsibility could not be maintained without the Financial Agreement of 1928, providing for a loan council to co-ordinate all the capita] loan commitments that were being undertaken by the six State governments and the Federal Government. In recognition of the exceptional nature of defence, that Financial Agreement, according to my recollection, exempted defence expenditure from the requirement that Commonwealth and State loan commitments should be assessed and resolved on the joint responsibility of the Australian Loan Council, defence being constitutionally the pre-eminent responsibility of the Federal Parliament. It was not, of course, sought, so far as I remember, and certainly it was not agreed that the Commonwealth assessment of its defence requirements should be governed in any way by a loan council constituted by State representatives. That is the explanation of the exemption of defence expenditure in respect of loans requiring approval by the Loan Council.

I have been recently reminded that in the Second World War we had extraordinary commitments. I was always brought up to believe that defence expenditure - even though, unit by unit, it would be, in accountancy terms, classified as capital expenditure1 - was the one type of capital expenditure which should be provided for from revenue, because the capital acquired under the defence vote may be blown up to-morrow in a very temporary process, and it is not economic capital in any sense. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will take some pains to explain the fallacy, should my belief be ill founded. When the Second World War overtook us, the government of the day very promptly exacted as much revenue as the people could yield and, as well, as much capital as it could get by loans for the purpose of financing the war effort. In the decade of the 1950’s, what was the situation? We come into a scramble, in which the relationship between State and federal finance is completely confused. Early in the 1950’s, we found the capital loan market soured and not yielding nearly sufficient of what the nation required for civil capital developmental finance. I have applauded before the fact that the Menzies Government, rather than see the development of the country arrested or reduced by the want of capital finance voluntarily subscribed to loans on the loan market, subsidized the capital finance requirements from its revenue year by year, so that to the end of 1961 the total Commonwealth revenue subscribed to State capital works was £790,000,000, and to date it is, I understand, £810,000,000 or £820,000,000.

That is the first contribution to confusion. The States’ capital loan requirements cannot be raised on the voluntary loan market, and therefore the Commonwealth weighs in its revenue, to the extent of £800,000,000, for State capital expenditure. Now, with deficit budgeting by the Commonwealth, when we have to finance deficits, we are told in the Minister’s speech that in the years ended June, 1959, June, 1960, and June, 1961, these items of deficit, so far as required, have been appropriated to defence expenditure on the capital account of the Commonwealth, and earmarked for defence. This is not because the money is being raised genuinely and actually for financing defence expenditure. Except in circumsances of acute pressure such as we experienced during the Second World War, I should not think that we would devote capital moneys to defence expenditure. In fact we have not. This is being earmarked as defence expenditure only for the purpose of invoking the exception in the Financial Agreement of 1928 and thereby avoiding the scrutiny of the Loan Council. If any one says to me that the scrutiny of the Loan Council is not to be feared, I am not here to deny it. The State Premiers have sold their birthright and succumbed to financial patronage in the 1959 agreement. They have surrendered their right to claim financial autonomy and at the same time shelved their duty to shoulder financial responsibility. But here we should note that insofar as this capital loan raising is to be marked as defence expenditure, it is not so in fact. And if it is, it is not proper to appropriate this, I suggest, to capital account but, being defence expenditure, it should be severely reserved for debit to the revenue account.

I put forward these propositions not because I pretend to know anything about them, but in this chamber at least there is, I believe, an increasing obligation on those who take an interest in such matters to ensure that the public accounts are presented with clarity and on a basis of reason. Over the last ten years revenue has been shovelled wholesale into subsidizing State capital works to the extent of £800,000,000.

Now Commonwealth loan raisings are being used for defence expenditure, socalled, simply to take advantage of a provision in the Financial Agreement. Defence expenditure, I suggest, should be debited to revenue. If there is to be a capital loan to finance the Government’s deficit that, not being defence expenditure, should come under the Financial Agreement, or the Financial Agreement should be altered. If the position be that the Commonwealth Government is going to take the view which, constitutionally, it might well justify - and I am not expressing any final point of view here - that its deficit should not come under scrutiny by the Premiers, but should be left for the Commonwealth to quantify and to determine the method by which it should be financed; and if the Commonwealth determines that the deficit should be financed by capital loan raisings and that that type of loan raising, as defence expenditure was under the 1928 Financial Agreement, should now be exempted from the provisions of the agreement, that is a proper subject-matter for debate, and I am not denying the propriety of the approach. But let us make the approach deliberately, and not through what is being used as a loophole for evasion - a provision that was introduced into the Financial Agreement of 1928 as a genuine reservation to the Commonwealth Parliament of a proper right to raise money for defence expenditure - proper, genuine defence expenditure - in such amounts as it thought fit, and whether by capital or revenue according to its own judgment. But the provision should not be used in this way to finance an ordinary civil expenditure deficit.

Before I close I wish to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the “ Hansard “ report of yesterday’s proceedings there is a serious mistake in the last paragraph of his speech in which the figure of £20,045 is mentioned. It should be £20,045,000. It is desirable that a matter of this sort should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. I would be most obliged, Mr. Acting President, if the matters to which I have referred with some degree of concern can be elucidated by the Minister.*

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

Correction made in weekly edition, page 1504. - I note that the Opposition supports the measure although, not surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has taken the opportunity again to attempt to berate the economic policies of the Government. Very quietly I say to him, on this peaceful afternoon, that the policies pursued by this Government are now working out extremely satisfactorily, and that every economic indicator is at the moment demonstrating not only expansion on an adequate base, but also justification for confidence.

I am not surprised that Senator Wright should have raised the particular points which he raised, because I quite well recall that when a similar bill was before this chamber earlier this year he expressed disquiet as to the procedures being adopted by the Government at that time in respect to the financing of deficits. I think that I said then - and if I did not I certainly say so now - that the circumstances of the time, and particularly the obligations accepted by the Commonwealth Government in respect of its support of State works programmes, make necessary an approach to this general financing problem rather different in practice from what was the case in 1928 and up to the outbreak of the Second World War. Senator Wright has referred, I think all too quickly, to this as an evasion of the Financial Agreement of 1928. With respect, I do not think that he would get a single Premier to support that particular charge.

Senator Wright:

– I hope I indicated that I thought it had their assent last year. Whether that assent was specifically secured for this 1 have no knowledge, but last year they specifically assented to it.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Having assented to it then and indeed, by their silence, having assented to it in the three previous years, that series of assents reinforces my statement that I doubt very much whether you would get a single Premier to agree with your allegation on this occasion that this similar action is an evasion of the Financial Agreement.

Senator Wright:

– Permit me to say that my argument only depends on the support of the State Premiers.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I know that Senator Wright on a number of occasions - and on this occasion too - assumes a position in splendid isolation from every one else, for which I pay him due tribute; but I think it is important, having regard to the defence set-up in Australia to-day, that I should point out, as the spokesman in this chamber for the Government, that Senator Wright does, in fact, stand alone and that the Premiers would not, I feel, support his allegation that this is an evasion of the agreement. The need for this sort of financing, I repeat, flows very largely from the fact that the Commonwealth Government has underwritten over a period of years the works programmes of the various States. I do not think it is right to say that, because of that, this defence expenditure cannot be directly charged against loan account, because the expenditure which the Commonwealth incurs in respect of defence1 is very much in excess, even this year, of the amount which we are raising by way of loan. Loan raisings are £180,000,000, against an estimated defence expenditure of £210,000,000.

Senator Wright takes the other point that, particularly in times of peace, a government should charge its defence expenditure to revenue. If this were a perfect world, I should be compelled to agree with him, but this is not a perfect world. We in Australia, as a matter of national policy, are pursuing a programme of expansion and at the same time are supporting programmes for immigration, full employment and price stability. Having regard to those facts, it is obvious that the 10,000,000 people in Australia cannot do what is the theoretically correct thing to do - finance expansion and defence from savings. Ten million people just cannot find the funds to do that. It is in those circumstances that the Government has adopted this procedure.

I repeat that it is a procedure that does not attract criticism from the States. In my view, there is certainly no evasion of the Financial Agreement. Indeed, the States, which are parties to the Financial Agreement, accept this policy as meeting the circumstances of the time, if only because of the material consideration that to do otherwise would impose great financial hardship upon the States themselves. Senator Wright has put an alternative course. He has said that we should charge our defence expenditure against revenue and, presumably, that we should charge our support of State works programmes against loans. I should like to hear the reaction of at least some of the State Premiers to that proposal, which would involve an interest charge.

Senator Wright:

– The third alternative was to alter the Financial Agreement.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I do not think for one moment that, in the light of all the circumstances and the ready agreement of all parties to the Financial Agreement, there is any need to alter the practice which has been adopted with success during the years since the war.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1543

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION FUND (DISPOSAL) BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th November (vide page 1505), on motion by Senator Wade-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- The bill now before the Senate authorizes the payment to the States of an amount of £266,000 standing in a Commonwealth trust fund. It is to be expended by the States, according to plans approved by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann), for the carrying out of research for the benefit of the wheat industry and for making available to wheat-growers information and advice on the production of wheat.

The Wheat Industry Assistance Fund was established in 1938 for the purpose of helping farmers who were working on small or uneconomic farms. It had an important effect in Victoria.

Some wheat-farmers had been placed in what is known as the Mallee and others in a portion of Victoria right out from Mildura.

Senator Gorton:

– The Milawa.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, the Milawa. I remember going there once. I could well understand why the people there were distressed. The State Minister of the day who carried out the settlement scheme must have been greatly ill advised by those who conceived the idea of settling people in that area. This fund allowed the settlers in the area either to get rid1 of their holdings or to make their holdings larger so as to enable them to go in for sheep farming. To be quite candid, by the time the fund came into operation there were not many settlers left there.

The years before 1938 were extremely difficult times for the wheat industry. I have taken some time in reading the debates on the industry that took place in, I think, 1933. They bear out what the Minister said in his second-reading speech, namely, that the industry was certainly depressed in the 1930’s. The price of wheat on rail for the 1930-31 season was 2s. 5id. a bushel. For the 1931-32 season, the price was 3s. 0¼d. a bushel, and in 1932-33 it was even lower, at 2s. Hid. When we read these old debates we are reminded of the way in which the valiant Country Party members of those days fought against any plan for organized marketing for the benefit of the farmers.

Senator Hannaford:

– Some of them.

Senator KENNELLY:

– At that time, as at present, the supporters of the Country Party held the balance of power in the National Parliament. While they were supposed to represent the farmers, attempts that were made to organize the marketing of primary products met with little help from them. It is true, as Senator Hannaford has interjected, that only some of them adopted that attitude. However, those who supported such proposals certainly did not seem to have much influence with the Government which they were keeping in power, because nothing much was done along those lines.

When we are discussing a bill of this kind we are given an opportunity to have a look at the wheat industry as we find it. The money that it is proposed to hand back to the States for the carrying out of research and for other purposes is, of course, the proceeds of a flour tax. This tax was first introduced in a more or less permanent form on 5th December, 1938. The relevant legislation provided for a tax on flour which was not to exceed £7 10s. a ton, varying as the price of wheat fluctuated. The base price in Victoria was 5s. 2d. a bushel at Williamstown. The commencing rate of the tax was £5 15s. a ton. Since that time there have been 22 variations in the rate, the highest rate being that reached in August, 1939, when it was £6 2s. 9d. a ton. From 22nd October, 1940, to 21st December, 1947, the rate was £2 8s. lOd. a ton. The rate was declared to be nil on 22nd December, 1947, because of the rise in wheat prices. The legislation which provided for the imposition of the tax on flour for this purpose was repealed in 1950.

Let us hope that the money which is being made available under this legislation will help the industry. Of course, it will not help the farmers, and I know that it is not intended to do so, by showing them how to meet increasing costs of production. Whilst it is true that the wheat-farmer receives a price for his wheat that is based on the cost of production for home consumption, if more than the stipulated quantity is produced and the price falls overseas, his return covering the whole of his crop is reduced I went to the trouble to refer to a publication issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to ascertain something of the cost of producing this commodity. Whilst our exports of wheat are not of such great value as are our exports of wool, wheat is nevertheless a very important commodity for Australia. The figures given by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics show that the total net cost of production, free at ports, was as follows: -

It will be seen that there has been an increase in the cost of production in each of those years. At page 34 of the publication, there are significant figures which show the way in which interest charges are adding to the costs of the industry. They are as follows: -

There has been a gradual increase in interest charges. Earlier to-day in the Senate I heard a Minister say how pleased he was to see that costs had been stabilized. Of course, he did not go back for any significant number of years. When we observe how costs are increasing so far as the wheatgrowers are concerned, we wonder where the process will stop.

It is interesting to note, from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics publication to which I have referred, that the return per bushel to the grower has declined while his costs have been increasing. In 1947-48, the return from bulk wheat was 14s. 3.7d. a bushel, and for bagged wheat it was 14s. 11. 5d. a bushel. In 1951-52, the returns were 14s. 2.9d. a bushel for bulk wheat and 15s. lid. for bagged wheat. The returns for the 1955-56 crop dropped rather dramatically to 12s. a bushel for bulk wheat and 12s. 8.4d. for bagged wheat. The crop for 1959-60 was the exception which proved the rule, in that in that year the returns rose. They were 13s. 5.3d. a bushel for bulk wheat and 14s. Id. for bagged wheat. For the 1960-61 crop, taking the first and second payments, the returns were 12s. a bushel for bulk wheat and 12s. 4d. for bagged wheat. As yet, only one payment has been made in respect of the 1961-62 crop. It was at the rate of lis. a bushel for bulk wheat and 1 1 s. 4d. a bushel for bagged wheat. Let us hope that the final payments for the 1960-61 crop will bring the total return per bushel up to the amount received by the producers for the 1959-60 crop.

There can be no denying that, irrespective of the difficulties with which we may be confronted should the United Kingdom join the European Common Market, we must give serious consideration to finding new markets for our wheat. I suppose we could produce sufficient wheat to meet the needs of nearly all the peoples of the world, but the tragic fact is that a great proportion of the world’s population cannot afford to pay for wheat. Australia has been extremely lucky, and I hope that it will continue to be so. But for the sale of wheat to China on credit, this country would have had a tremendous carry-over from the 1960-61 crop. I am speaking now purely from the point of view of the economics of the situation. I am not concerned about whether we sell to red China, white China, red Burma, or anywhere else; I am concerned only with finding additional export markets. In the publication by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to which I have referred I found some very interesting figures with relation to the carrying over of wheat between 1952 and 1961. 1 do not propose to weary the Senate by quoting the figures for each year, but I point out that if we had not sold wheat to red China on credit, our carry-over from the 1960-61 crop would have been something like 64,000,000 bushels. I hope, therefore, that the Australian Wheat Board will be able to find additional markets for our wheat.

It may be of interest to honorable senators to know that in 1960-61 China was our largest wheat customer. In that year, she purchased 40,296,000 bushels of wheat. The next largest customer was the United Kingdom, with 27,400,000 bushels. Then came Italy with 16,600,000 bushels, followed by Japan with 13,100,000 bushels, Iraq with 9,800,000 bushels and New Zealand with 6,100,000 bushels. Some may argue that these statistics are irrelevant to the bill before us, but the disposal of our wheat crop is an important subject and we in the Senate do not get much opportunity to sink our teeth into such worthwhile topics. I say with great respect that, as we are placed to-day, we could spend our time to much better advantage if a day were set aside now and then to allow us to discuss such important matters as the disposal of our wool, wheat and other export earners. When bills such as the one now before us are under discussion, we are met with frowns if we attempt to discuss the industry as a whole, and no doubt if we did discuss it the Minister would tell us that most of what we had said was irrelevant to the contents of the measure being discussed. What opportunity do we in the Senate get to discuss these important questions?

Senator Hannaford:

– You have been given a pretty fair opportunity to-day.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I take the opportunity; I am not given it. I have no desire to stifle debate on other matters, but what good purpose do we serve by discussing the pettyfogging matters that usually come before us? How many bills have been introduced during this session dealing with matters about which there is any great disagreement between the two main political bodies here? They have been very few indeed. Does the Government want us to meet here only to say, “ Yes, the bill is all right; goodbye “? I think the people out side would think more of us, and we would perform a much more useful service to the nation, if, when we had before us a bill dealing with wheat, wool, sugar or some other important export product, we could discuss it with some definite purpose in mind. At least, such debates would give those honorable senators who were interested enough to study the subjects an opportunity to brush up their education. I hope that when measures such as this are brought before us we shall be able to range widely in the debates, so that we shall be able to help overcome the nation’s problems. It is my belief that the future prosperity of this nation will depend upon the combined effort of all parties.

I repeat that I hope the Wheat Board will be able to find other nations to buy our wheat, even if they buy it on credit. I recognize that we cannot give wheat away and that the wheat-grower must get a return for his product. It is essential that we find more markets for our wheat. It is to be hoped that this £266,000, which has been held back for a long while now and which the Government proposes by this bill to return to the industry for research and other purposes, will bring some benefit to the wheat-growers of Australia as a whole.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– Like Senator Kennelly, I intend to take this opportunity to remind the people engaged in the wheat industry of some of the history of this legislation. Before doing that, I should like to answer a few of the comments made by Senator Kennelly. He referred to the attitude of the Australian Country Party to orderly marketing in the wheat industry. It is the platform of the party that I represent-

Senator Kennelly:

– It is now, but it was not at the time of which I spoke.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It has always been the platform of the Australian Country Party-

Senator Sandford:

– Your party has not got a platform.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– You will hear a little more about it in a minute.

Senator Sandford:

– You are only political parasites.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Anderson). - Order!

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It has always been the platform of the Australian Country Party that when an industry wants an orderly marketing scheme, provided the majority wants it, we will do our best to implement it. I tie that up with the history of the Australian Labour Party in regard to the marketing of wheat. When that party was in power, it took the wheat of the wheat-growers of this country and sold it to New Zealand for 5s. 9d. a bushel when the wheat-growers were receiving 14s. 6d. a bushel overseas. Senator Kennelly went on to talk about the returns to the growers at the present time. Was his party interested in the returns to the growers in 1947 when it made that wheat deal with New Zealand? Of course it was not. Yet members of that party stand up because the proceedings are being broadcast and tell the Australian people that members of the Labour Party are a good crowd of people. Knowing the history of the wheat industry, can we think for one moment that the Labour Party has a good record in respect of that industry? I am proud of the part my party has played in this industry, but I am not so proud of the part the Labour Party has played.

Senator Kennelly went on to talk about rising costs. We know that all primary industries are faced with this great problem. From time to time the primary industries have asked the Government to do something about this problem. The Government has done something for the primary industries by introducing the economic measures of recent years, which the Labour Party opposed so vigorously. As a result of those measures, in recent years we have seen a levelling off in the continual rise in costs. The honorable senator talked about markets. He said that we must get markets. I agree with that. Then why did the Labour Party oppose the Japanese Trade Agreement which has given the wheat industry one of its most valuable markets in recent years? These things do not add up. Members of the Labour Party come into this chamber and accuse the Country Party of not doing its job. So I return the compliment and ask honorable senators opposite what their party has done.

Now I return to the bill. As Senator Kennelly said, all the bill does is provide for the transfer to the States of certain moneys standing in a Commonwealth trust fund, to be used for the benefit of the wheat industry. I take this opportunity to say something about the previous history of this legislation. I start with a comment made by the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) in his second-reading speech. He said -

The bill will revive old memories in the minds of wheat farmers of a previous generation and will also be a reminder to the generation of to-day of the problems that were encountered many years ago and the efforts that were necessary to overcome them.

I think all honorable senators will agree that to-day the wheat industry is relatively prosperous because it has a stable marketing authority, and because of its relative prosperity the industry has played its part in maintaining the prosperity of the whole country. Because of the prosperity of the industry over recent years, the newer growers have tended to forget the problems that faced their fathers and uncles in the earlier days.

The Wheat Industry Assistance Plan was drawn up at a Premiers’ Conference in 1938 because of the grave crisis in the industry at that time due to depressed prices for wheat. Senator Kennelly spoke about Victoria. The wheat-growers in that State had the same problems as we had in Western Australia. The growers in the marginal areas in our State had small blocks of land which made it uneconomic for them to carry livestock. So, they were condemned to growing wheat for the rest of their lives. At that time wheat prices were uneconomic. These growers were forced to obtain some assistance from the Government. The Government came to light with a plan under which it would buy out those growers, give their blocks to their neighbours and settle them on other areas. The whole idea behind the plan was to try to lead these men into mixed farming instead of continuing to grow wheat at the depressed prices. Now this assistance is no longer wanted, but £266,000 is still available in the fund. The Government is now introducing legislation under which the money will be paid to the States. The position to-day is totally different from the position at the time when the plan was conceived. When we drive through the so-called marginal areas to-day we find prosperous farms. We also find that those marginal areas are now well inside the limits of the present wheat belt. The word “ marginal “ has stuck to those areas. After the Second World War, when the war service land settlement scheme was continued, the authorities were reluctant to settle men in those areas simply because they were labelled “ marginal “ when the Wheat Industry Assistance Plan was originated. That has had a harmful effect on those areas.

Because all States were involved in the plan and were partners with the Commonwealth, it is only fitting that they should be consulted in regard to the distribution of this money. At a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, all governments agreed that the money should be paid to the States to help this vital industry in another way. There is no doubt that at present a good deal of research work needs to be done in the wheat industry, particularly in the newer and lighter lands in Western Australia.

The expenditure of more than £38,000 in Western Australia will be of great benefit to the new wheat-growers. The money is to be used for specific purposes, namely, for research in the wheat industry and to make available to growers information and advice on the production of wheat. This work is to be done by the departments of agriculture in each State, but the plans must be approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. I commend what the Government is doing to distribute the money to the States for the benefit of the wheat industry, and I am pleased that the Opposition is also supporting what is a very good bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- The Opposition supports the bill for the very good reason that the measure provides for the distribution to the States of £266,000 for research and extension work in the interests of the wheat industry, work which otherwise would not be undertaken. I remind the Senate that this proposal is before the Parliament as a result of planning that was initiated during the horror years of the economic depression when wheat-farmers were destitute and without hope for the future. The Commonwealth and the States got together and decided that something would ha- e to be done for this important sector of the Australian economy. A plan was evolved to give the wheat-growers some security for the future. In those years, farmers made only a bare living, and what has been done for the wheat industry since then needs to be done now for the dairying industry. Unfortunately, the Government has not the fortitude to approach the problem of the dairying industry in the same way, although there are marginal dairy farms which will have to be treated now as the wheat farms were being treated then.

The Opposition has been criticized for its attitude to the wheat industry, but I remind Senator Drake-Brockman and others on the Government side that credit for the present stability in the wheat industry lies fairly and squarely with the Labour Government that was in office during the Second World War and immediately afterwards. The wheat stabilization scheme was introduced in 1948 by the present honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), who was then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. From that scheme has grown the present organization of planned marketing, development and research which enabled the wheat industry to take its rightful place as one of the bulwarks of our economy. Everybody knows that the wheat industry has suffered great variations in its fortunes. Only recently, silos throughout the country were bulging with wheat. Government supporters have adopted a hypocritical attitude, and are prepared to sell our wheat wherever they can find a market. They have closed their eyes to the issues involved, and with tongue in cheek have said that they see no reason why we should not get rid of our surplus wheat to a country they do not recognize.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– What would the Opposition do with it?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– We shall have to do something about the surplus that will accrue with the alterations in our traditional wheat trade as the European Common Market develops.

Senator Henty:

– Where would you sell the wheat?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I can tell the Government immediately where we would sell it. If the people of Asia could get only one cup of flour a week each they would need twice our production of wheat for themselves alone. If somebody could meet the bill, we could produce the goods. It is a matter of how we are going to arrange for the supply of a commodity, which we have the natural ability to produce, to those who need it.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) spoke of assistance to wheat-growers on uneconomic holdings. I remind honorable senators that this Government’s policy has reversed the position of primary producers generally. Our wheat-growers have to take pot luck on the world’s markets. They get certain basic prices, but no provision has been made by the Government to protect the producers from the effect of ever-mounting costs. The cost of land itself is so high that new farmers are not taking up wheat growing. Often the second son of a wheat-grower has to leave the industry because his father’s farm cannot carry the family as it did in days gone by. A bag to contain wheat costs more than was previously received for the contents of the bag.

Senator Hannaford:

– The Government is not responsible for that.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Government is directly responsible.

Senator Hannaford:

– Cornsacks have to be imported.

Sentor O’BYRNE. - In war-time we produced materials ourselves for bags, and there is no reason why we could not have continued to grow jute and flax and other products if costs had been kept stable. By the time a farmer pays freight and the other charges that have been allowed to run riot by this Government, the margin left to him is far too small. The farmers can lay the blame without qualification on this Government for the ridiculous policies it has adopted. This Government has allowed inflation to go unchecked so that primary producers, who are working long hours and conscientiously using the products of scientific research, still cannot compete on the world’s markets. Since the Second World War, the number of sheep in Australia has increased from 112,000,000 to 150,000,000. The wheat yield has increased, and the quality has improved, but the price remains virtually static. The Government must take responsibility for the small margin between costs and prices that is available to producers. However, I entered this debate because Senator Drake-Brockman introduced an element of politics into a debate on a matter which has the support of this side of the Senate. People become nauseated with continual reference to 1948 and 1949. The whole of my argument is that our cost structure has altered over the years. Inflation has come into consideration. The Government was elected in 1949 upon a promise to put value back into the fi, but value has gone out of the £1 so rapidly that it is now worth only about one-third of its value at the period to which the honorable senator referred. I agree that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We were able to make an agreement with the New Zealand Government. To all intents and purposes, the wheat-growers were glad to have a steady trading agreement. As the situation developed, there were shortages in other parts of the world. Members of the Country Party want to socialize their losses and individualize their gains. If they are doing well, they do not want any interference, but when things are not going well they want every one to come in and assist. They want the cake and they want to eat it, too.

The Opposition supports the distribution of this handsome fund of £266,000. As a result of common sense being introduced to a most important industry, the heartburnings and worry that existed in previous years will, I hope, never be repeated. Any government that allowed them to recur should be thrown out neck and crop. The wheatgrowers have the assurance that there will always be a government to see that they get a fair go. This amount of £266,000, not being needed for the purpose for which it was collected, is being directed into a very worthy channel. I hope that the research and extension work that will result from its distribution will bring further expansion and prosperity to the wheat-growers. I add my support to the measure.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– As one gentleman of the Senate remarked to me a few minutes ago, “ Once a wheat-grower always a wheat-grower “. Although I have not grown wheat for quite a number of years, I still have a very great interest in the industry and I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. I agree with Senator Kennelly that it is good for legislation of this kind to be brought into the Senate, because we can get our teeth into it, with perhaps a few recriminations between one side and the other. At the same time, we inject a little interest into a debate on provisions for an industry which is of very great importance.

I agree with the statement in the Minister’s second-reading speech that the measure revives old memories. During the 1930’s I was a wheat-grower and I remember with the greatest clarity the vicissitudes of the industry and these engaged in it during that difficult period. I hope that the industry will never have to experience the conditions of those critical years from 1930 to 1939 and even for a short time afterwards. It seems rather paradoxical that a war was required to lift the industry out of the trough in which it found itself during the 1930’s. However, all of the years of the 1930’s were not bad. I made a note of the figures cited by Senator Kennelly. He said that in 1930-31 the price of wheat was 2s. 5d. a bushel; in 1931-32, 3s.; and in 1932-33, 2s. lid. I can remember clearly that in at least two years we had a payable price. Our feeling as wheat-growers then was that if we could only get 3s. 6d. a bushel we could make a do of it. In 1934-35 and, I think, in 1935-36, we had payable prices. I remember those years quite clearly, because 1 was tempted to buy a tractor. Had it not been for reasonable prices for wheat during those two years, I would have been in very serious financial difficulties as a result of the purchase of the tractor.

Senator O’Byrne:

– How much was a tractor in those days? Was it £300?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I bought a crawler-type tractor costing about £600. It was a good investment, as things turned out, particularly as I bought it during those two years when we had a payable price for wheat. We must remember that the wheat industry slipped back, until in 1938-39 the price was down to about ls. lOd. or 2s. 2d. a bushel. When war broke out in 1938-39, the Commonwealth acquired the wheat. In the final wash-up of that pool - I do not know whether it was described as a pool - we received about 2s. 2d. a bushel. So the! wheat industry was not out of its difficulties even when war broke out, but owing to the war there was a gradual rise in prices. The wheat industry enjoyed the prosperity associated with the higher prices during the war and, to a lesser extent, afterwards.

I remind honorable senators that the wheat-grower has no reason to feel that he owes a debt of gratitude to the Australian people. In fact, quite the reverse is true. During the period of high prices after the war, the wheat industry, by accepting a stabilized price which was many shillings below the world price, contributed between £150,000,000 and £200,000,000 to the Australian consumer. So anything that the wheat-grower is enjoying as a result of stabilization is entirely his due. He is getting something of his own back, because we have to recognize that by accepting prices below the world price level he made a very big contribution to the Australian community in the form of cheap bread and other wheat products. But that is merely in passing.

I suppose, Mr. Deputy President, that this debate has become a little wide. I think that even you have rather enjoyed the digressions. It is informative to recall some of the difficulties and problems with which the wheat industry has been confronted and to realize how important that industry is to Australia. We are very small fry among the wheat-producing nations. Even a little country like Italy produces more wheat than we do. I suppose we could produce a lot more wheat than we do, but our main interest is in other forms of primary production, particularly wool, and I am rather glad that emphasis has not been put on an increase in wheat production, but on maintaining a balance in primary production, which includes the production of wheat, wool and many other commodities.

I recall clearly the events in the 1930’s which made the plan for assistance to the wheat industry necessary. I think most of us can recall the difficulties that were then being experienced by wheat-growers settled on marginal lands, not so much in New South Wales, a State of which I have not much knowledge in this respect, but certainly in Victoria, Western Australia and

South Australia. Great difficulties confronted men who had chosen to work marginal lands. These men were in the main what we call “ wheat cockies “, and in many cases were working war service land settlement blocks. Because of the association of low prices and the dry conditions in the areas where these men were settled the intense production that was necessary to enable them to make a living had a deleterious effect on the land itself. We can remember the success of the legislation that was then passed to deal with the problem. We saw the merging of these toosmall areas into larger areas and, later, the diversification of production that led to the gradual restoration of a ‘certain element of prosperity which it had not been possible to maintain immediately after those men had taken up their blocks.

In the early days the erosion that took place in those dry areas necessitated the farmers growing more and more wheat - intensifying their production by putting down bigger acreages. We saw the ruinous effect that that was having on their land. One had to go to those areas, which were mainly very dry areas, to see what was happening. Fortunately, after the last war, we had learned our lesson, and did not settle ex-servicemen or anybody else on these semi-arid areas where there was a danger of serious erosion because of the low rainfall. The destruction wrought by erosion was tremendous. One could see mallee trees the roots of which were completely bare of soil, which had been stripped away by the wind as a result of the intensive agriculture that had been carried out there. We have got away from that. The wheat industry stabilization plan enabled the States to enlarge areas for individual holders, who were then able to concentrate less on the growing of wheat and to run livestock to a much greater extent. This led to a better balanced primary industry in those areas, and there was a gradual restoration of production and greater prosperity for the people engaged there. The plan saved those farmers. The legislation under which it was established was complementary legislation which, for constitutional reasons, had to be adopted by the Parliaments of the four States concerned - New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and

South Australia - as well as by the Commonwealth Parliament. That legislation was a great thing for Australia, because it saved the situation for the marginal producers.

The plan was financed by the proceeds of the flour tax, and Senator Kennelly, who took the trouble to get the figures, has told us of the amount of money raised by the flour tax which was instrumental in enabling the scheme to be carried out. We are indebted to him for that.

This bill will achieve its purpose. The amount of money to be distributed is about £266,000. It will be paid to the States to distribute to the industry for the financing of wheat research, and the work to be financed by the money will have to be approved by the Commonwealth. This amount represents the residue of revenue from the flour tax which was discontinued in, I think, 1945-46. It is not a very great sum of money, but it will augment the other expenditure undertaken by the States for the furtherance of agricultural research and the development of our primary industries. It will be a useful adjunct to the money available for the extension services that are carried out by the depart ments of Agriculture throughout Australia. Incidentally, I think this Government can take a certain amount of credit for the work it has done for agriculture by providing finance to the Stare Governments for these valuable extension services. I have had some association with agricultural bureaus and from my experience I know that the scientific aspect of agriculture is extremely important to wheat-growers and primary producers generally. The provision of extension services is extremely costly. It involves the employment of people from institutions such as the Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia and those who have done courses at universities in agricultural science. These services cannot be provided for nothing, but it is absolutely essential that scientific knowledge be disseminated throughout the agricultural community. While the1 amount provided by this bill is only small, it will be a useful adjunct to the finance that is at present available for research.

Senator Kennelly made reference to the attitude of the Country Party towards wheat stabilization. I do not know that he was altogether fair in what he said.

Senator Kennelly:

– I have read the debates of 1933.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– That is going back a fair number of years. 1 can say from my experience that if the Country Party at that time had views dissimilar to my own on stabilization, that is not the attitude of the party now. No one is more wholeheartedly in support of stabilization than Senator Drake-Brockman. I know that he has always been a strong advocate of stabilization. I believe that the stabilization of an industry such as the wheat industry is a great advantage to the community as a whole.

Senator Kennelly:

– Will you carry that on to the wool industry too?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I am not the

Government of the day. 1 am just a humble supporter of the Government. Stabilization depends entirely on the industry itself. As Senator DrakeBrockman said, if an industry expresses a desire for a stabilization scheme, and is sincere in its desire, the Government will do its utmost to bring in a scheme that will satisfy all concerned. That applies to other industries besides the wheat industry. On one occasion the Government did its utmost to assist the dried fruits industry with a stabilization scheme, but it could not get unanimity within the industry itself. If unanimity cannot be achieved within an industry, is the Government :o be held responsible for not bringing down a stabilization scheme? If the wool industry were to show clearly that it wanted a stabilization scheme, the Government would act accordingly. In 1950-51 a stabilization scheme was mooted for the wool industry, but subsequently the industry turned it down. The Government had no option but to drop the scheme. It had to refund the money it had collected from the industry for the purpose. At one stage the Government had been given the green light, but later, as the result of a ballot of wool-growers throughout Australia, the stabilization plan was turned down and the Government had to refund some millions of pounds to the industry. That was the end of stabilization for the wool industry then. But if the wool industry, or any other primary industry, desires stabilization, and shows clearly by the conducting of a ballot of its members that it wants stabilization, the Government will do its best to bring in a stabilization plan for that industry.

We often make comparisons of the records of governments in relation to the management of various industries. I suppose the wheat industry has had more politics injected into it than any other industry in Australia. It is a vital industry politically. We know that governments stand or fall on the outcome of elections for the wheat seats. That is one reason why the wheat industry has always been looked at from the political angle. I think that some honorable senators opposite will acknowledge that the Labour Party has made one or two mistakes in relation to the wheat industry. I do not think the Labour Party will ever be able to live down the New Zealand wheat deal as long as it is a Labour Party. I very clearly remember that it was only as a result of agitation from this side of the chamber that growers were compensated for the difference between the price that was received from New Zealand and the ruling price of the day. The Minister who negotiated the deal was also the Vice-President of the Executive Council. He denied that the price was a concessional price, but, if my memory serves me right, he had to retract that denial and the Labour Government had to acknowledge that it had sold the wheat at shillings below the ruling price of the day.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is not right. At the time the deal was made, the wheat was sold at the correct price.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– No, I do not agree with that. The wheat was sold at shillings below the ruling price of the day. It was sold at a concessional price because, if I remember correctly, an election was taking place in New Zealand at that time and the Labour Party in Australia wanted to help the Labour Party in New Zealand. Labour members here had a certain feeling of brotherhood for their New Zealand colleagues.

Senator Ormonde:

– Why not?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– There is an acknowledgment from Senator Ormonde. We are taxing our memories on these things.

Senator Kennelly:

– Memories linger on.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Yes. We have all made mistakes and we will probably make further mistakes.

Senator Toohey:

– What was the price at which the wheat was sold?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– As far as I can recall, it was 5s. 9d. or 5s. 8d. a bushel. Whatever the price, it was miles below the ruling price. It was only because of constant agitation by people on our side of the Parliament that the growers finally were compensated for the discrepancy.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is a slight exaggeration.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I do not want to exaggerate. We all make mistakes. The Australian Labour Party does not like to be reminded of these things. However, I think that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber believe in the need for a prosperous wheat industry. We arc committed to stabilization of the industry.

I hope that the expenditure of this money will serve a useful purpose. The amount of £266,000, which is the residue of collections from the flour tax which ceased to operate in 1945-46, will be distributed to the States. We all have a great interest in the wheat industry, because wheat is such an important commodity. It is essential that it be marketed to the best advantage throughout the world. Without going into the question of marketing, it is correct to say, despite Senator Kennelly’s comments, that Australia is still one of the cheap wheat producing countries. We are able to produce wheat more cheaply than are most countries. We have great markets at our back door, so to speak. I have always been a supporter of the idea that we should sell wheat to other countries, if necessary on a credit basis.

Senator Toohey:

– Other countries such as China?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Yes, such as China.

Senator Hannan:

– Go easy

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I am not going to retract my statements on this question. I believe that we have sold wheat to red China with great advantage to Australia. When all is said and done, the Chinese people are human beings and they require food. If they can give us a satisfactory financial arrangement to pay for this wheat, even on a credit basis, we should sell it to them.

Senator Prowse:

– Somebody else will, if we do not. I

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Exactly. We produce the type of wheat they require. There is no reason in the wide world why we should not enjoy a market with our eastern neighbours which could be of incalculable benefit to us in the future. We have to look to the South-East Asian area for our future markets. I may be departing a little from the bill, but it is true to say that the wheat industry is very concerned with marketing arrangements. We have a vital interest in that subject, too. This is an unimportant measure when it is related to the whole of the wheat industry, but it is associated with an industry which we believe will be of great benefit in the future of Australia. For the reasons I have given, I support the measure.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– The purpose of this bill is to enable the Government to distribute a little more than £250,000 now held in a trust fund. The money was collected by means of a flour tax which was imposed by the authority of an act passed in 1938. It was collected for a purpose for which it is not now needed. Since the last year in which it was collected was 1945-46, in respect of the No. 9 wheat pool, it is not practicable to return the money to the growers who participated in that pool. Consequently, it is proposed to use it for the purpose of assisting the industry as a whole. If this bill becomes an act, the money will go to the State Departments of Agriculture for the purpose of research into the problems of the wheat industry and for extension work with a view to seeing that the results of the research are made known to the farmers and are applied by those for whom the research is undertaken. That is the be-all and end-all of the bill on which we have had such an interesting discussion this afternoon.

I do not wish to traverse the ground which has already been covered. It would take rather too long to do so, but there are one or two points which I want to make in reply to the comments of Senator Kennelly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He spoke, quite rightly, of the problem of overseas markets, with which we are, of course, all concerned. That is a matter of great importance. But when Senator Drake-Brockman pointed out that this concern for overseas markets was not manifested by his party when it opposed the Japanese Trade Treaty, Senator Kennelly had no reply. Indeed, there was no’ reply that he could make. Together with other action taken by the Department of Trade, the negotiation of the Japanese Trade Treaty has secured for the wheat-grower an expanding market in the area to our north which is essential for a prosperous wheat industry. Indeed, this year the market in Japan took some 331/3 per cent, more wheat than it took last year. It is a growing market.

Senator Kennelly:

– What was the actual tonnage?

Senator GORTON:

– It was about 400,000 long tons this year, or nearly 17,000,000 bushels. I do not think I need to traverse the controversy about the sale of wheat to New Zealand. It does not really seem to be relevant to this bill, but it is amusing to see the discomfort which the raising of that subject causes on the other side of the chamber. However, the matter has been discussed and we can let it go at that.

There is only one other point that I wish to make. Again, it relates to a comment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the rising costs being faced by people on the land, who, unlike those in the manufacturing industries, cannot pass them on to the consumers. Again, I say that this concern with costs for the people on the land was not manifested by honorable senators opposite last year. At that time, the Labour Party opposed the measures which the Government took, unpopular as they were. They were attacked by the Labour Party because they were designed to stop booming costs. The measures taken by the Government did stop booming costs, and the farmers who grow wheat and other primary products are benefiting from those measures more than any other section of industry. With those few unprovocative remarks in reply to the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I commend the bill to honorable senators. As I have said, it is a simple one.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– In view of the Minister’s great knowledge of this subject, would he be good enough to state the total amount collected from this tax?

Senator Gorton:

– It was something like £27,000,000 over the years that the tax operated.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Could the Minister break that sum down into the amounts which each State provided?

Senator Gorton:

– Of course, that would depend very considerably on the amount of flour that was milled in a particular State in a given year. I think it would require a good deal of research to answer the honorable senator’s question.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I recognize that it may take some time to ascertain the information, but I should be pleased if the Minister would let me have it at some future date. I remember the relevant legislation being discussed in the Legislative Council in Victoria in 1938. I was not over-pleased with the imposition of a flour tax. I thought that the industry should have been helped in another way. I should not think it would be difficult to obtain the information I seek, and I shall be very pleased if the Minister will promise to obtain it for me.

Senator Gorton:

– My adviser from the department informs me that there will be very little difficulty in obtaining the figures, and they will be supplied to the honorable senator.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.46 to 8 p.m.

page 1554

CUBA

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 6th November (vide page 1191), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the following paper: -

Cuban Crisis - Documents relating to proceedings in the United Nations, and statements of the United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Governments, 24th October to 5th November, 1962 - be printed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I have accepted a limitation of time to my contribution to this debate. The debate concerns the Cuban crisis which developed on 22nd October last. The motion that a paper be printed, which we are now debating, relates to a statement made by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) on 6th November in another place and repeated in this place by his representative, Senator Gorton. At the same time, there was presented to the Senate a list of many documents concerning the crisis and covering the period from 24th October to 5th November. I draw attention to the fact that although a request was made by me on the date that those documents were filed, that we be kept up to date with the documentation in relation to the crisis, we have had no other documents since 6th November. I, in common with everybody else in the Senate, I presume, have been obliged to pick up information relating to the crisis from the newspapers of Australia instead of from an authentic source within the Parliament. In the view of the Opposition, that is a matter warranting criticism of the Government. In order to get a perfectly balanced view of developments, one needs to see the authentic documents. In approaching this subject, I feel a grave need created by the absence of the relevant documents.

The debate initiated in another place by the Minister for External Affairs was not called on again until today. It was called on today in the absence of the Minister of External Affairs, who is abroad on business connected with his portfolio and with crises in other areas of the world. It is interesting to record that, after the long delay in calling the matter on - I repeat that it was called on in the absence of the Minister for External

Affairs - the debate was gagged after one speech - a speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). Now the matter is before the Senate, and we are proceeding with the debate, I express thanks to the Government’s representatives in the Senate for meeting my usual contention that I should not be obliged to state Opposition policy ahead of the leader or deputy leader of the party, as the case may require, in a matter of this kind.

The crisis began on 22nd October, when President Kennedy announced -

In order to protect the security of the western hemisphere and world peace, a strict quarantine of all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated.

The news at the time indicated that weaponbearing Russian ships were approaching Cuba and that America had built a blockade across their path. The world was in grave apprehension. People thought that at last they would know what would happen when the irresistible force met the immovable body. But, happily, they are still unaware of the consequences of that rencontre.

On the following day, 23rd October, Mr. Menzies made a brief statement to the Parliament relating to the announcement by President Kennedy. That statement was repeated by the Leader of the Government here, Senator Spooner, and I spoke to it immediately after he concluded. I should like to remind the Senate of the brief comments I made on that occasion. I said -

I think it timely that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) addressed a communication to the Parliament on this very important matter. I trust that he will advise the Parliament, and the nation, very promptly of all developments as they occur.

That trust was misplaced, as I have indicated. I went on to say -

We all have a vital interest in knowing what is taking place.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Calwell, to-day made a statement on the same subject, which I propose to read to the Senate. Mr. Calwell said - “President Kennedy’s nation-wide broadcast to the American people announcing a naval blockade of Cuba to prevent the landing in that island of certain war materials, and of other steps designed to prevent the construction of nuclear missile sites and air bases which he believes is proceeding, and which could threaten disaster to many cities on the American continent, was couched in language that cannot be misunderstood. The world anxiously awaits the next developments and prays that peace will be preserved.

The President lays the blame for the sudden crisis on Russia’s intrusion into the western hemisphere. The world watches the situation which has developed with horror. The people of the world want peace and are opposed to war, not only because of the wastefulness of war, but also because of the vast amount of human suffering involved and because of its uselessness in settling any issue. No sensible person would wish to see the extension of nuclear bases anywhere. We of the Labour Party are opposed to such extensions whether it be in Cuba or anywhere else.

For my part i believe the Australian people hope this present crisis will not end in armed conflict but will be resolved peacefully through the United Nations, the seventeenth anniversary of whose birthday occurs to-day.”

I concluded -

Speaking personally, i hope that Russia will end the crisis by very promptly dismantling the bases that it is causing to be established in Cuba.

Very fortunately, that hope was realized. Some two days later, my leader, Mr. Calwell, made another statement, following the intervention of the United Nations and the activity of its Secretary-General, U Thant. He said this -

The Federal Parliamentary Labour Party welcomes the intervention of the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, U Thant, in the Cuban crisis so momentous for humanity. We believe that every possible step should be taken to obtain acceptance of his appeal because this may help to avert the holocaust of a third world war. Accordingly, i have tonight, on behalf of the Labour Party, asked the Australian Government to use its best endeavours to persuade the United States, Russia and Cuba to accept U Thant’s proposals for a “ cooling-off “ period to enable the United Nations to mediate and bring about a settlement.

He continued -

We believe that if the Government will do this it will be giving effect to the heart-felt wish of the Australian people as a whole. Unless a halt is called now it may be too late to prevent a disaster for mankind; no influence which might help to bring about that halt should go unused.

I understand that Mr. Calwell received no answer to the letter that he addressed to the Prime Minister on that occasion. Since those events, we have seen the tension created by the crisis gradually ease. We saw first the diversion of Russian ships from Cuba, bearing armaments as they were. We saw the withdrawal of Russian missiles and the dismantling of their bases. All that was accomplished, or at least was under way, by 28th October, within a week of the crisis developing. On 28th October, Mr. Khrushchev gave an undertaking to remove the Russian missiles and to dismantle the Russian bases. Later he gave an undertaking that bombers, to the presence of which the United States objected, would be removed within a month. At the moment they are in the process of being removed. On that undertaking, which was accepted by the United States, the United States lifted its blockade of Cuba. It also promised not to invade Cuba.

That left at issue only two matters - the United States demand that there should be United Nations inspection of bases in Cuba to verify the removal of missiles and the dismantling of the bases; and the allied question of the continued reconnaissance nights by United States aircraft over Cuba. They are the two issues that still have to be resolved. We of the Opposition trust that the good sense that marked the attitudes of President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev will prevail, resolving those outstanding matters. Cuba, of course, is involved in the settlement of this dispute, too. Cuba has an active interest in its own land and its own establishments, and is concerned with what it calls the “ spy nights “ over its territory. The matter having been referred to the Security Council and having regard to the successful intervention of U. Thant, I hope that these remaining matters will be left in his very capable hands. So, we have reached the position where the world can breathe again. The threat of nuclear war has receded.

If the whole incident proves anything, it proves the justification for the existence of the United Nations. We found the two giants of the world confronting each other on the very verge of nuclear war, and the United Nations provided an impartial intervener, trusted by both sides, through whom, in private if necessary, they could exchange and reconcile views. What was the alternative to that? There would have been no alternative other than that the contestants would remain at arms’ length, having no communication except by the exchange of armaments in action, and the end would have been nuclear war. So, those people who criticize the United Nations as an ineffective force in world affairs must now acknowledge that in probably the gravest crisis that has confronted the world for a very long time the United Nations acted rapidly and effectively. It is quite true and good to see that the moment the question of hostilities arose both the United States of America and Russia referred the dispute to the Security Council and sought and accepted the intervention of the SecretaryGeneral.

There are some lessons to be learnt from this incident. The first fact to which we may direct our minds is that, at least at the present time, Russia does not want war and certainly does not want nuclear war. Whatever Russia’s attitude in the cold war and its general approach to the West may be, I suggest that the incident has demonstrated that Russia does not want war. I recall that the Prime Minister concluded the statement that he made on 23rd October with these words -

Indeed, the whole matter will serve to test whether the Soviet Union’s constant advocacy of peace possesses either sincerity or substance.

Having regard to the turn that events took, I believe we must concede that Russia survived that test fairly well because I can say with confidence that the whole incident shows that Russia does not want nuclear war at this stage.

The second lesson for the world was that the incident proved how fast a threat of nuclear war can develop. The realization of that now should have a most potent effect in influencing the course of the talks and negotiations at Geneva that have been deadlocked for so long. The world has grown tired of the abortive efforts to achieve even a modicum of disarmament. Every move towards that highly desirable end, which everybody applauds by word, has been thwarted and frustrated down years and years. I believe that the incident, adverse as it was, might be turned to advantage if it has brought home to the nations at least the need for disarmament, particularly in the nuclear field. I hope that that result will be noticed effectively ere long. The other very interesting element that has come out of this conflict and is likely to have a good effect in the future is the attention that it has directed to chapter VIII. of the United Nations Charter, which deals with regional arrange ments, and particularly to article 52, which approves and authorizes the making of regional arrangements relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. It is completely within the ambit of the charter for nations to enter into regional pacts and agreements that will ensure peace in their regions.

I was interested to note comments in the press of London and Washington quite recently on a resolution proposed by Brazil in the United Nations. Brazil proposes that Latin America should be made a nuclear-free zone. We have heard the term “ nuclear-free zone “ before to-day. The comments made in the “ New York Times” of 13th November and in the London “ Observer “ were to the effect that Great Britain, the United States and the Western powers have now moved into full support of regional arrangements for nuclear-free zones. The Brazilian resolution was before the United Nations during the month. It has been adjourned. It is rather interesting to note that when disarmament was being debated in the United Nations on the 7th of this month the United States made generalized favourable comment on the Brazilian proposal. The nations of the world seem to be alerted to the need for creating nuclear-free zones.

On 13th November, Senator O’Byrne asked some questions based upon that position. He set out the facts that had appeared in the press and asked two questions. He asked -

How will Australia vote on the resolution?

If the resolution is carried, how will the Government justify its criticism of the Opposition’s proposal for a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere?

Neither of those questions has yet been answered. It occurs to me that this might be a suitable time and place for the Government to face up to the position and to answer the questions. I direct attention to the fact that a year or so ago the United Nations unanimously approved of making Africa a nuclear-free zone. One of the great things that have come out of this Cuban crisis is the fact that at least the attention of the great nations is directed to the desirability of that type of thing. When the Brazilian resolution comes before the United Nations, it will be very interesting to see how the great nations vote and, above all, how Australia votes. The Government has had notice of those questions for about nine working days. Having regard to what I have said, I hope that we will hear an answer from the Government this evening.

Cuba, of course, is the locale of the crisis that has developed. It is an unhappy country under a dictator, forced by economic stresses into the Communist orbit. A most devastating report on Communists’ activities has been issued by the International Association of Jurists. I saw a precis of it in the press during the past few days. I have not it with rae at present, but it recorded that horrors and terrors were being perpetrated in Cuba. Cuba is a backward country economically, and accordingly it can fall an easy prey to communism, questing for fresh bases and fresh opportunities.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What made it backward?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is another matter. It is part of the great problem that faces the better developed nations of the world. You cannot leave nations uneconomically based without hope of development or of improving themselves. Probably the best way to peace is to ensure that there is even and quick strengthening of the economies of the less developed countries. This is of the greatest importance, not merely to the economies of the countries concerned, but also to the very peace of the world. Cuba is a shining example of how a relatively small and insignificant country can be used to start a world conflagration of the size and type that threatened the world until happily, quite recently, the heat was taken out of it.

Senator Maher:

– Threatened by a sawdust Caesar.

Senator McKENNA:

– That could well be. I have nothing to say in his favour as an individual. The form of government that they have in Cuba - a relative dictatorship - is not the type of government that the Opposition approves. We must have regard to the interjection of Senator O’Byrne. What has caused the present situation? What enabled Russia to obtain a toehold in that land, and then mount a threat poised right at the very heart of the Untied States of America from only 90 miles off its coast? I have not the time to deal with that proposition, but it certainly poses a question for consideration.

I recognize fully that nothing we say in this Senate during this debate is going to influence the course of events in the Cuban crisis, although it is possible that something could be said that would not help the situation. I and my colleagues feel that there is no virtue in holding a post-mortem over the causes or in searching for weaknesses in the position of the two giant contesting nations who confronted each other over the Cuban situation. No doubt one could discuss these matters without profit to oneself or to anybody else and point to certain weaknesses, but we on the Opposition side are only concerned with the happy outcome of this affair. We can be thankful that under Divine Providence, and through the good offices of the United Nations - in particular through the successful activity of the Secretary-General, U Thant - that the crisis is on the way to being completely resolved. We are happy to see the faith we have always expressed in the United Nations justified in this way.

I conclude by a reference to the policy speech that was made on behalf of the Australian Labour Party by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Calwell) at the last general elections in December, 1961, when he reviewed the international scene. There is one passage in that policy speech that crystallizes, I think, the Opposition’s outlook. It is germane to the subject we are discussing, and should be of interest to anybody who wants to know where the Australian Labour Party stands in regard to these matters. The passage is as follows: -

If, however, war should be forced upon the free world, Australia,, whether we wish it or not, will be involved. In those circumstances we who belong to the free world will stand with the free world and will give wholehearted support to its cause. There could be no other course for those who cherish freedom and believe in democracy. We of the Labour Party have always been found on the side of liberty because we hate tyranny and abhor oppression.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I rise with a sense of privilege in taking part in a debate of supreme national importance and also, I think, with a sense of responsibility because I believe we have to address ourselves to a subject which is at the basis of the aspirations of every person in Australia - the issue of war and peace. I believe that means that every person in Australia seeks an opportunity to improve the standards of his life, to cultivate the arts and literature and to aid science as well as to expand our economic growth. We aspire to all that in an environment of free institutions that guard the very basis upon which our families hope to build their independence. We seek peace - to repeat the terms stated by President Kennedy - not at the expense of freedom, but only if accompanied by freedom. That is where I believe it is necessary for all parties in this Parliament to make their solidarity of purpose firm and explicit - that it is peace with freedom - and to make it quite clear that it is only those who defend peace who preserve it.

I speak with great advantage in this Parliament where our very thoughtful Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick), as early as 25th October, provided us with all the international documents that had been exchanged since the crisis arose five days before that date. A few days later, he supplied us with all the documents that had been exchanged in the pregnant period between 25th October and 5th November. It is heartwarming to realize that the Minister for External Affairs shares the view that members of Parliament representing the people have a duty to study these things. At this date, the duty becomes more intense because the success of the outcome of the negotiations gives us an opportunity to guard against any weakness in the last incident, and to see if possible how we should strengthen our purpose to achieve success in the event of any danger that may beset us. I have no patience whatever with any member of this Parliament who will say that the Cuban incident has gone and that interest in it has ceased. Interest in this incident should not cease in any individual in the Australian community for another two years.

Senator Toohey:

– It should not cease at all.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I agree with that. This incident is of the first international importance but it would be a mistake to think that it is of final importance in relation to these matters. I propose to ask the

Senate to listen to a discussion of the matter against a background of where we have come from since World War II. We on this side of the chamber, supporting the Government that has been in office in Australia for some years now, cherish the value of the United Nations, not in idolatry but prepared to detect its defects from time to time, and to persevere persistently with the idea of strengthening and supporting it. The United Nations’ role in this incident gives cause for hope and should still the tongues of those who were prepared to say that it was simply a debating society and completely useless. To be effective in this role, one does not have to be a dictator, the head of a government of extreme importance, or the head of a government of lesser importance. If one acts in the role of conciliator, with purposeful and effective advice, although the victory is not acclaimed as one’s own in the long run, the effectiveness of one’s contribution should not be denied.

Following the constitution of the United Nations seventeen years ago, there has been a growth in the development of international relations that should not be neglected. We have seen associations on the side of the free democracies in institutions such as Nato, the forethought and strength of which have been supports to prevent the march of a nation which undoubtedly adopted deliberately the role of exerting force and power against all countries opposed to its ideology. Then there has been a most encouraging growth in international institutions in western Europe, starting with the encouragement given by the United States’ Marshall Aid, demonstrating the need for co-operation between the countries of that area, and about to culminate in the solidarity of European unity, taking the framework of the European Economic Community. All of these things have been assisted by regional pacts, which the Charter of the United Nations itself encourages if they are put forward to promote the purposes of the United Nations. I refer to the Organization of American States, the Anzus pact and Seato pact as regional pacts of significance in this context.

Having brought to mind those few events of the post-war period, let me say that as background to the Cuban situation we should give a word to Korea and also to tha

Congo, each of which demonstrated that as an executive armed force the United Nations is not self-sufficient. We want to recall the fiasco of Suez, which demonstrated that in this post-war world that has produced the internationalism to which I have referred, war will never be condoned in defence of commercial interests. Then we should bring to our mind Pigs Bay. To make national security effective, we have a duty to be vigilant in seeing that our allies are assisted by all of the purposeful advice and diplomacy that can be provided by a country perhaps as insignificant as Australia, so that no fiasco such as that of Pigs Bay will ever be condoned by any responsible government, large or small, in our time.

The recital of those events makes it proper to express an idea which, I regret to note, was totally omitted from the speech that preceded mine, that is, an idea that is congratulatory of the efforts of the Englishspeaking governments of Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, solidly in support of the leading AngloSaxon nation, the United States of America, whose resolution and insight were responsible for the successful conclusion of this most dangerous incident. On this occasion unanimity was forthcoming in a remarkably short time. On 22nd October President Kennedy made a direct and resolute statement, conscious of all the anxieties of leading a great democracy to the brink of defence of peace. He was supported within 24 hours, first by Australia, then a few hours later by Great Britain, followed by Canada and New Zealand. Coming at a time when the outcome was not assured, as a demonstration of democratic solidarity from the people of our way of life and the English-speaking faith, that was a matter for pride. Why? Because a country in pursuit of a dictatorial way of government and a way of life opposed to our individual freedom has chosen a path of direct opposition to the western democracies since the dose of the war, and given ever so much evidence, especially in the first ten years of that period, that its method of resolving the conflict was designedly war. I suggest that this risk is lessening now with a growing resolution in the Russian people to taste the fruits of a slightly advanced economy and an appreciation of the decencies of individual life. Russia in this instance made the first attempt in the post-war period, the significance of which we should never allow ourselves to forget, to plant an atomic missile base outside the Soviet Union in the centre of the American sphere.

So, Mr. Deputy President, the assessment of the significance of that attempt was the responsibility, in the first place, of the Kennedy Government in the United States of America. Let honorable senators read again the speech that President Kennedy made on 22nd October - not to his Cabinet, not merely to Congress, not primarily to the people of the United States, but to the whole world for its judgment. If that is not democracy tell me what is. Having first been entrusted with the authority to make that assessment, which Congress, with forethought, had given him before it went into recess a few weeks earlier, the President made it. Some trickle of evidence having appeared at that time, vigilance equipped him with further evidence whereby he was able to show, as Prime Minister Macmillan said in the House of Commons on 23rd October, that there were in Cuba no fewer than 30 atomic missiles, 20 bomber planes and 5,000 Russian technicians to direct and control them. All of this material was obviously for use against the countries which were opposed to the Russian ideology and which lay within the range of these weapons.

President Kennedy made his assessment of that intrusion into the American sphere of massive Russian atomic weapons. He assessed its purpose - as what? Not defence of Cuba, but attack upon the United States.

Senator Maher:

– And yet the Russians talk of peace.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Let me not he provoked. All I am trying to persuade those who will listen to me to understand is that the first question that must occupy the mind of any thoughtful person is: Was President Kennedy justified in putting this situation into the category of an attack upon American security, or could the Russian claim that those weapons were there for the defence of Cuba be considered? The nature of the weapons, the quantity of them, the destructive power of them should prove to all of us that they were there for the purposes of offence.

In one of Khrushchev’s communications to President Kennedy - that of 28th October, 1962 - Khrushchev himself said -

With great understanding I think of your concern and the anxiety of the U.S. people to the effect that the weapons you call “offensive” are really menacing weapons. Both you and we realize what kind of weapons they are.

That is from the Russian leader himself. I therefore suggest to the Senate that I have made the point that a reasonable judgment, made with a sense of responsibility, that the security of the American people was threatened, was justified. This was not the first attempt to plant atomic missiles outside of Russia, and not the first attempt by Russia to establish a base in the centre of the Americas. In those circumstances a judgment that Russia’s actions in Cuba were for the purposes of offence was justified. There were Russian bombers there, and missiles with a range of up to 1,000 miles. No fewer than 30 such missiles had at that time been detected in Cuba. Those weapons were under the control of Russian officers. What did President Kennedy do? He issued a statement which it is a great mistake for anybody to regard as simply a statement of his intention to oppose this attack by force. He broke his statement up into seven heads, but in substance it consisted of a declaration on two matters. The effect of the first was: You halt this build-up of weapons. It must stop. If you proceed to ship those weapons to Cuba we demand the right to search.

But President Kennedy did not say that he would oppose the landing of all weapons in Cuba. As the British Prime Minister said in the House of Commons, the armaments that were specified as contravening the blockade were surface-to-surface missiles, bomber aircraft, bombs, airtosurface rockets and guided missiles, together with their warheads and equipment.

Not all weapons. But President Kennedy said: If you continue to build up these bases with Russian atomic armaments within our area we will search or sink. Honorable senators know the meaning of that. It is satisfactory to know that at the same time he was careful to make it clear that this was simply for the purpose of the defence of American security, and” he justified a prior statement which I invite every honorable senator to scrutinize.

Was this action justified? I put it to you that it was. We no longer live in a world where only the actual use of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to justify action. Having regard to the destructive capacity and range of modern weapons the view has to be taken that a build-up of weapons in the circumstances I have described represents an attack upon the security of the Americas. If that is conceded it naturally leads to the second part of President Kennedy’s statement, which was -

At the same time as I issue this statement I am asking our representative to submit to the United Nations Security Council this threat to international peace so that it can take it into its authority to resolve it.

That, I suggest, is completely in accord with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which says -

Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective selfdefence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

For my part, I believe that the first lesson to be learnt from the Cuban incident is that any resolution to defend the peace must be preceded by preparedness. It was only the massive strength that America had accumulated to counter atomic attack that made President Kennedy’s statement of 22nd October effective. The second lesson is that, when faced with a definite confrontation, this great power, the Soviet Union, does show some degree of responsibility for world peace. Realizing the significance of an atomic conflict, it withdrew. In that situation, the parties were aided very significantly by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant. He suggested that there should be a temporary suspension of the shipping of weapons and, at the same time, an assurance by the United States that the blockade would not be exercised and that Cuban integrity was not in jeopardy. He suggested that the situation should stay dormant for two or three weeks.

The interchange that took place then between Khrushchev and Kennedy should be studied for a long time. It gives us a permanent basis for hope that, given resolution to defend the peace at all costs, the Russian menace can be stemmed until the Russian people evolve an appreciation of the fruits of developed democratic life and deprive dictators of authority to lead them into war.

What is the Australian position in relation to this? I have noted that the Australian Government - with, I think, the almost unqualified support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) - sent a message commending President Kennedy’s statement. That betokened solidarity. That message was all the more significant because it sprang from the confidence that has been built up between America and Australia and was not, as I interpret it, the result of any obligation under a treaty such as the Anzus treaty. As I read that treaty, the commitments are related to attacks upon New Zealand, Australia and America in the Pacific area. The treaty arrangements do not oblige instantaneous mutual action, but they do provide for continuous consultation between the Foreign Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and America. The anxiety that the British Opposition had that Britain might be involved without prior consultation with America does not obtain under the Anzus treaty, which provides for continuous consultation.

So, Mr. Acting Deputy President, we have lived through a dispute which, to use the terms of Churchill, literally put us circling around the rim of hell, but has been resolved. What has happened has demonstrated, I believe, that the purpose of the Government of the United States of America is to protect the peace and the security of its people, and that the purpose of the other Anglo-Saxon countries is to protect their peoples and the peace, even to the extent of facing the inevitable sacrifices of an atomic conflict. Out of that strength and resolution has been demonstrated the way to defeat aggression, which this unmistakeably was. For the first time, atomic warheads controlled by Russia were taken out of Russian territory and planted in the centre of the Americas, making Washington the bull’s eye of the Russian target.

It is a matter for great rejoicing that the world has been saved from what might have been an armed conflict arising out of this incident. I believe that we would contribute greatly to the national security of Australia if we took note of and closely scrutinized the activities of all parties engaged in this incident, with the purpose of knowing how to act in the future if an incident of this character recurs, as it undoubtedly will. The onrush of Russia has not been stopped. It has been stopped only at one particular point and in one particular place. If we study this incident statesmanship can come to the aid of the preservation of peace, which is the supreme objective of us all.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I can at least agree with Senator Wright’s statement that we should approach a debate of this character with a sense of responsibility and a sense of objectivity. Having said that, I want to join with Senator McKenna in introducing a measure of criticism. Some three weeks or more have elapsed since the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) made his statement to the Parliament. I remind the Senate that during that three weeks the Senate has been in recess for one week. I understand that some members of the Parliament did attend the Commonwealth Games in Perth, but I think that very few of them did. The games could have gone on without the presence of members of this Parliament. Perhaps we would have been better occupied in giving more time to a debate of this character than in granting a recess of the Parliament for one week to enable members who wanted to do so to attend the Commonwealth Games.

Senator Branson:

– We wanted the debate brought on a fortnight ago, but your leader did not want it.

Senator TOOHEY:

– That is not so. The honorable senator is not correct when he says that. It is a matter of regret to me that we have only this evening in which to dispose of a matter of this character. As I have said, there seems to have been no sense of urgency in the mind of the Government to deal with the matter. I agree with Senator Wright that this is a subject which has a deep and impelling urgency about it. The main point on which I disagree with the honorable senator is his statement that we should continue to observe the lesson of Cuba for a period of at least two years. I admit that he later qualified that statement and said that we should not forget it for all time. In my view, the incident contains many lessons for the future to which we shall have to give the most serious consideration.

I propose at this stage of the debate to introduce some of the background to the step that was taken by the Soviet Union and which brought forward swift action on the part of the United States of America. I remind the Senate that before the Castro regime took over in Cuba, there was in that country tyranny, corruption and oppression. It is a matter of extreme regret to me, and to all the members of the party that I represent in this chamber, that the United States did not, some ten, fifteen or twenty years ago, have sufficient insight and humanity to understand the privations that the people of Cuba were suffering at that time and which, indeed, they have suffered ever since. It is a pity that the United States did not show some degree of concern to alleviate those sufferings. Had it done so, it would have made friends for life of the Cuban people, instead of having a situation such as we see confronting us to-day. We have now to begin all over again in attempting to establish better relations between those two countries so that they may be able to live in peace as neighbours. When we speak in terms of apportioning blame, do not let us forget that we have to look at our friends as well as our enemies.

It is true that Cuba was exploited not only from within but also from without. The people of Cuba suffered unmentionable privations, just as did the people of other countries of South America. The United States was not blameless in that regard. I must say that since President Kennedy has been in office, there has been at least a breath of fresh air in the White House in Washington in regard to some international relationships. President Kennedy inherited from former American regimes certain things that were not in the best interests of either the people of America or those of the free world generally. I can see, and I know that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber also can see, a genuine attempt being made by the American people to correct some of the mistakes of the past. But those mistakes, if we are to understand the position fully, have to be taken into consideration. They have to be looked at against the whole pattern of global events with which Cuba is associated.

Having said that, I want to say that we have seen in Cuba a dictatorship of the extreme right being replaced by a dictatorship of the extreme left. Looking at the matter dispassionately, that is the position we have in Cuba at the present time. On the credit side, at least it can be said for the Castro regime that it has removed the country from the tentacles of outside exploitation. It has taken Cuban affairs away from those who were seeking to use the Cuban people and the resources of Cuba for the purposes of outside interests. But, as I have said, we cannot ignore the fact that the assumption of power by Castro represents only the turning over of a dictatorship of the extreme right to a dictatorship of the extreme left. I am doubtful whether there will be any democracy in Cuba while the Castro regime is in power. I am also doubtful whether we shall ever see free elections in Cuba. That brings me to the point which Senator Wright mentioned when he referred to the Bay of Pigs incident.

I absolve the Kennedy regime of responsibility for the disastrous part that was played by the United States in that abortive attempt to invade Cuba, because it had inherited a situation over which, I feel, it had no control. Senator McKenna has properly taken the time of the Senate to refer to certain statements that have been made by the Australian Labour Party in respect of the Cuban crisis. I want to add to those statements one which was made at the time of the abortive invasion in the Bay of Pigs region earlier last year. On that occasion, the Federal Parliamentary Labour Party carried the following resolution: -

That in all cases of civil war coming before the United Nations in respect of countries which, like Cuba, have a long tradition of dictatorship established by military force, Australian policy should be directed to the following United Nations actions: - (1.) The establishment by the United Nations of a condition of cease fire; (2.) The conduct and supervision by the United Nations of free elections on universal suffrance. Pending the holding of these elections, the United Nations to administer the country in question; (3.) After the election of a government by popular consent, a period of military support by the United Nations forces of the freely elective government; (4.) Ensuring the disarmament of dissident factions; and (5.) The United Nations withdrawal.

Senator McKenna has mentioned two of the pronouncements that have been made by the Australian Labour Party. I remind the Senate of this statement which was made officially by the party at the time of the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion.

I wish to introduce a new note into this debate, because there are certain things that happened in connexion with the particular action taken by Soviet Russia which, to my mind at least, do not ring true. Why did Russia take the action she took in October? Did she think it would succeed? I do not think so. I do not think for one moment that Khrushchev was foolish enough to think that he could, under the very nose of the mighty United States of America, establish a missile base in Cuba and get away with it. It seems incredible that he should have thought he could do so. That drives me to the belief that this was a matter of global strategy. It was a case of the old game of power politics being played by the two great powers. It was a tactical move in the cold war, just as the action of China in intruding on Indian territory is a tactical move in the global strategy of powers which are trying to create situations and to assume positions which will enable them perhaps to be in a better position to make the next move.

As I have said on other occasions during debates of this character, we who live in an isolated country like Australia can look at the global pattern only from far away. However, 1 believe that Russia did not expect to get away with its action in establishing a missile base in Cuba. It is possible that Khrushchev was trying to prove some point or other. It may be that he was trying to impress upon the Government of the United States that it was just as easy, in certain circumstances, to have weapons pointed at the throat of the United States as it was for other countries to have weapons pointed at the throat of Russia. Let me mention, too, some of the rather extraordinary statements made in the Minister’s speech which, in a way, tend to support my contention. Russia established these bases with the consent of Castro, the United States of America reacted violently and Khrushchev, without any argument whatever, said quite happily, “ Well, if you think it is wrong, I will shift them “, which he did. The Minister said that President Kennedy, in a statement made on 28th October, welcomed Khrushchev’s reply as statesmanlike. That is all very fine. President Kennedy then wrote a further message to Mr. Khrushchev in which he said he regarded his own letter of 27th October and Mr. Khrushchev’s reply of 28th October as firm undertakings on the part of both governments which should be promptly carried out. He hoped that the necessary measures would be taken at once through the United Nations so that the United States of America would be in a position to lift the quarantine. I think that supports to some extent my contention that this was just another of those tactical moves in the cold war that have a relation to global strategy, moves in which we of the smaller nations become pawns in the game.

Much has been said by the Minister about the lessons to be learned from the Cuban crisis. I agree to a large extent with his observations in connexion with the lessons to be learned, but I think we should also remind ourselves that both the major powers broke some of the cardinal rules of the United Nations Organization in their activities in connexion with this Cuban dispute. Not only Russia, but also the United States of America, broke those rules. It is a matter for regret that this should have been so, especially when we remember the great part played by the United Nations Organization in bringing the dispute to a successful conclusion. I remind the Senate of this further statement by the Minister for External Affairs -

U Thant kept in touch with United States and Soviet representatives, facilitating discussions and acting as a link between them. He also endeavoured to secure Cuban co-operation in an approach to a peaceful settlement. So far as appears, to this point of time the Cuban Government had not been consulted by the Soviet in connexion with the matter. On 26th October, U Thant wrote to Dr. Castro saying that the latter could make a significant contribution to the peace of the world by directing the suspension of construction and development of major military facilities and installations in Cuba, especially those designed to launch medium range and intermediate range ballistic missiles. Dr. Castro replied that Cuba was willing to discuss its differences with the United States and to do everything in its power in co-operating with the United Nations in resolving the crisis. However, it .rejected any violation of its sovereignty. Castro also invited U Thant to Cuba for direct discussions. On 28th October U Thant accepted the invitation and said he would bring a few aides with him and would hope to leave some of them behind to continue common efforts towards a peaceful solution. He went to Cuba on 30th October.

I pause here to make the point that one of the things that I regret is that Senator Wright did not place sufficient emphasis on the great role the United Nations has played in connexion with world conflicts in the past, and the role that it has played in settling this more recent dispute in Cuba. I think the whole key to world peace lies in the continuing strength of the United Nations and the assistance given to it to build up its strength as a world organization for peace. The Australian Labour Party has always recognized its importance as a world organization for peace. We have never failed to advocate on every occasion that all possible assistance and support should be given to the United Nations in its attempts to resolve world disputes. The results of the gallup poll held recently to ascertain the views of the Australian people with relation to the value of the United Nations Organization is most interesting. They indicate quite clearly that the United Nations Organization is looked upon by the Australian people as a very valuable organization in promoting peace throughout the world. Let us learn a lesson from that gallup poll and give serious thought to developing ways and means of strengthening and increasing the authority of this body which, I believe, will be our only hope of ensuring peace throughout the world in the future.

It is inevitable, that when we criticize one or other of the world powers, certain accusations should be hurled back and forth. For instance, if one criticizes the United States of America one is branded as a Communist. If the United States of America does something which we think is foolish or stupid, or which we may think constitutes a threat to the security of both America and ourselves, and we direct attention to that fact, we are branded as Communists by those who accept slavishly as right whatever the United States of

America does. We must get away from that type of thinking. We shall not be of any use whatever to our allies if we merely become the echoers of statements made by even the most irresponsible elements in the United States of America. And do not think for one moment that irresponsible statements are not made in the United States of America. I have before me a book written by one of the best-known political authors in America - Jack Bell. In his book “ Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater “ he refers to an organization called the John Birch Society, and makes particular reference to its leader, Mr. Robert Welch. Mr. Welch is not a person who has recently escaped from a lunatic asylum. Not only does he hold a very high position in the United States of America, but he is an extremely wealthy man, and has friends who occupy very high positions in the Republican Party. In the book to which I have referred, the author makes this statement -

It was Welch’s considered opinion that Milton Eisenhower, the former President’s brother, was “ actually Dwight Eisenhower’s superior and boss within the Communist Party.”

What he says in effect is that although President Eisenhower was a Communist his brother was a worse Communist. He was a smarter man, and was therefore a worse type of Communist than President Eisenhower. But Welch did not confine his criticism to President Eisenhower, for he had this to say about President Kennedy -

Before the 1960 presidential campaign, he said that John F. Kennedy, the subsequent Democratic nominee, was “ smart enough to know the strong communist support he will have to get in order to have any chance of being nominated . . .” He added that “ such an amoral man can do a tremendous amount of ball-carrying on behalf of communist aims here in the U.S.”

Senator Kennelly:

– Who wrote that book? Was it written in Victoria?

Senator TOOHEY:

– No, it was written in the United States of America. The author continues -

After Kennedy had become President, Welch felt that the new Chief Executive was “less a’ captive of communist influences “ than Eisenhower. He did not let it rest there, however. “ Kennedy has done many things considered soft on communism in a political way, such as his speech as a United States senator in support of the communist-controlled Algerian rebels,” Welch said. “ I was sorry to see any one in our government take such a stand.”

Some of these are people who occupy high positions in the United States of America, people of wealth and substance, and they are running round on the lunatic fringe of American society making irresponsible statements that can do nothing to help their country, but which can do much to help the enemies of their country. We must not let ourselves be gulled into that type of thinking, nor must we introduce into our debates the attitude that because a person disagrees with what is being done he falls within the category of persons such as Robert Welch, who spoke so stringently about two Presidents of the United States of America. The activities of this person whom I mentioned were such that they impelled even Richard Nixon, the former Vice-President of the United States of America, to say that what that country did not want in particular was super-patriots. He said, “We want people who are patriotic, but we do not want superpatriots in this country “. I am confident that Richard Nixon and President Kennedy do not want anybody in the United States of America or anybody in the Government of Australia to support every move that is made, whether it has merit or not.

I believe that the type of mind that those men have welcomes criticism from their friends and says that they have the right to express that criticism. I believe that those men would think ever so much more of this Australian Parliament if we were to say, “ Before we give our blessing to any action the United States takes in any part of the world, we as a Parliament want to be satisfied that that action is right and proper, has behind it the seeds of humanity and satisfies every other requirement”. If we do that the voice of Australia will be listened to with respect in world affairs. Until such time as we re-shape our thinking along those lines, we will continue to be regarded as a small, insular country which is not of much consequence at all.

Senator Ridley:

– We were once in the position where our voice was listened to with respect.

Senator TOOHEY:

– Yes, we were. In the changing world of to-day it is no longer sufficient for the United States of America or any other country to adopt the attitude that the United States has adopted in the past and to say, “ We will recognize any government just because it is a government”. The United States did that in South America, with disastrous results to its present-day relations with some of the South American countries. If we are to shape our thinking along the lines of keeping this world free from the holocaust of war, we can do that only by saying that a government that is tyrannical or corrupt or a government that oppresses, represses or exploits its people cannot be condoned and cannot be recognized. Until we can employ that new type of thinking in our attitude to world affairs, we will be behind in our attitudes and our thinking in regard to the changing world in which we live.

Every day a new country seeking nationhood emerges. Every day a new movement arises in the desert or the jungles of Africa, or in some other place where people are striving to find self-expression. We, as a country with great possibilities and great wealth, have a responsibility to those people not to assist somebody to oppress them and not to try to stop them giving expression to their nationalist aspirations, but to say, “You have a right to a place in the sun and we are here to give you a helping hand “.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- It has been claimed that this debate has been deferred unduly. That statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and reiterated by Senator Toohey. The truth of the matter is that Senator McKenna gave the clue as to why this debate was deferred when he said to-night that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) had agreed that this debate should be postponed until there had been an expression of opinion by the Leader of the Australian Labour Party (Mr. Calwell), who happens to sit in another place. The accusation made by Senator Toohey, namely, that we could have debated this matter at any time in the last three weeks, is totally inaccurate for the simple reason that the hands of honorable senators on this side of the chamber were tied by an undertaking that had been given to Senator McKenna.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What would you have said if the debate had been brought on earlier?

Senator CORMACK:

– We would have gone on with the debate at any time you liked to have it. This afternoon, within the precincts of the Parliament, I listened to the most astounding statement that has ever been made in my hearing in relation to the Senate. I think the Senate should know of it. The statement was that no business should be debated in the Senate until it has been considered in another place. That is the most astounding statement that I have ever heard in my parliamentary and political experience. I hope that some people on this side and on the other side of the chamber will start to look at that statement and realize that the Senate has a responsibility to the people of Australia which is equally as appropriate as the responsibility that is owed by members of the Parliament who sit in another place. I do not intend to tolerate the accusation that it is the fault of honorable senators on this side of the chamber that this debate has not been brought on before this day. I hope that no other honorable senator will tolerate it either.

This Cuban episode contains within itself the anatomy of aggression. There is a remarkable lesson to be learnt by us in Australia. Senator McKenna, in his introductory remarks in commencing this debate to-night, began at 22nd October. But this episode, of which the Cuban blockade was the finale, did not begin on that date. This matter has been in the process of gestation for a long time. Senator Toohey said that the United States of America had a responsibility to intrude in Cuba and to see that a helping hand was extended to Cuba. The truth of the matter is that the United States did that 50 years ago when it emptied the Spaniards out of Cuba. Most honorable senators know that for many years the United States poured a great deal of wealth into Cuba and tried to set the Cuban economy and the people on their own feet. After the due effluxion of time that has been characteristic of the United States both in Cuba and in the Philippines, it moved out and handed the government of the country over to its own people. Then, of course, there ensued a succession of dictatorships in Cuba which culminated in a very brutal one by the adventurer Bastista. He started as a sergeant in the Cuban army and eventually became a very rich man and fled with a great deal of booty after Fidel Castro had organized his revolution in the Cuban mountains.

Castro seems to me to be a very odd sort of man. He constantly protested that he had nothing to do with left-wing politics, that he was the simple saviour of his people. However, in common with most successful revolutionaries, he began to make himself clear by his subsequent actions. The subsequent actions in Cuba, of course, were the necessary concomitants or the necessary orchestration of every form of revolution that has a socialist background. It is accompanied by the early morning volleys of machine guns. Since then Castro has continued to show more pronounced Communist affiliations. Now, to my mind, he is indistinguishable from a Communist. At least he carries out some sort of pretence of not being a Communist. He invites the Communist Party into his Government. He allegedly controls the Communist Party in Cuba in much the same way as Dr. Soekarno is controlling or seems to be controlling the Communist Party in Indonesia. Castro sent a very odd man - the Argentinianborn Che Gevara - to Russia. Many things, which I shall make clear in a moment, eventuated from that visit to Russia. Castro has been interfering constantly in the internal and domestic affairs of the Central American republics for the past three years. He has been doing that in defiance of an agreement amongst members of the Organization of American States which operates under a provision that was drawn up in 1934, and which declares in Article J that - -

Any attempt on the part of a non-American State against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, of the sovereignty or the political independence of an American State shall be considered an act of aggression against any American State.

By a paradox of history, that provision was reaffirmed in the Declaration of Havana in 1940. Notwithstanding this acceptance by the Organization of American States that there should be no interference inside the nations of America, Castro over the past two or three years has been constantly interfering in Central America. The reason why he interfered in the Central American States becomes fairly clear because it was in support of native Communist parties in those states, particularly in Venezuela and Guatemala.

For some fantastic reason which I cannot understand - and which Senator Toohey cannot understand although he accords it a tactical quality which I do not accord to it - the Russians began to buy into this situation, and it seemed to obtain some kind of focus when the chief Communist in Cuba went to Russia. He came back with an undertaking that Soviet Russia would supply Cuba with arms. So we get the next chapter in this progression where the United States of America quite rightly became concerned with the strategic situation that Cuba occupied in relation to the United States of America with its ability to hamper American mobility and logistic support by supervision of the Panama Canal. This was a bitter lesson that the United States of America had learned in 1942, and it began to take a deep interest in what was going on in Cuba. This culminated in the declaration that President Kennedy made on 22nd October. That is the time at which Senator McKenna began to take this matter up in the Senate tonight, as though if began there. In my opinion, that was the end of the situation, and not the beginning.

The interesting point is that the United States of America, having obtained information and proof that a significant phase of aggression was developing in Cuba by the development of ballistic missile bases in Cuba and the presence of Russian bombers, President Kennedy sent for Mr. Gromyko. When President Kennedy asked Gromyko the purpose of the arms flowing into Cuba, Gromyko, looking the President straight in the face as I assume, said, “These are weapons for defence only “. As a matter of fact, if you examine some of the Englishlanguage newspapers published in Russia over the month preceding 22nd October, you will discover that there is a constant reiteration in them that the arms going to Cuba were for defensive purposes only. Here we had a prominent Russian, the Minister in charge of Foreign Affairs, looking President Kennedy in the eye and saying that these were only defensive weapons; yet the President, as he said in his address to the American people on 22nd October, had in his possession concrete proof that they were aggressive weapons. He had proof, not only that there were aggressive weapons but also that they were weapons that could have been put there only for the purpose of aggression. But Gromyko claimed - as it was claimed in the left-wing English newspapers - that these were simply rockets.

All I can say is that 30 simple rockets carrying a normal charge of T.N.T. such as would have been used twenty years apo would not have been able to cope defensively with any threat that the United States of America was capable of developing against Cuba. In other words, these things were useless unless they were armed atomically. The bombers were capable of carrying atomic weapons. At that stage, President Kennedy had no option but to assume that, having challenged the Russian Minister in charge of foreign affairs, and having proved him a liar, he had to put himself at least in a defensive posture. Therefore, he chose what seems to me a wise thing; he placed a cordon sanitaire around Cuba, and at the same time called up the American offensive capacity. Th&i was a highly dangerous situation, because there was enough evidence apparently to disclose to the Russians that the Americans were putting their atomic strike on fifteen minutes’ notice.

It was at that stage that the Russians began to come to the conclusion that they had made a fundamental mistake. It has been claimed in the Senate that the situation I have described, which had been developing not for a short time but over a long period, had assumed a form on 22nd October when the United States of America had to make up its own mind to what extent it would resist this Russian aggression, because there were other things obviously on the slate. Mr. Khrushchev had been making some threatening statements about Berlin for some time, and it is about this time or early next year that he would raise the whole question of East Germany and Berlin.

It may be said by Senator Toohey, for example, that this was a tactical move in power politics. I do not consider it to be so at all. I think it was a strategic move by the Russians to put themselves into a posture in relation to the United States of America, or it was one of the most dangerous forms of brinksmanship where the Russians set out to see what sort of reaction they would get from the United States before they took their next step in their concept of world politics.

Let me deal now with the subject of the United Nations. The initiative to deal with this matter did not come from the United Nations Organization. On 23rd October, the United States Ambassador in the United Nations Organization, Mr. Adlai Stevenson, wrote to the Acting Secretary of the United Nations Organization and directed attention’ to the aggressive action that had been taken by Russia in Cuba. It was at that stage that the United States sought to assemble the support of the nations inside the United Nations. It is interesting to read the papers that have been tabled in the Parliament dealing with the action that subsequently took place inside the United Nations Organization because there was, as you might expect, a gaggle of unalined nations doing everything they possibly could to impede the capacity of the United States of America to inhibit the aggressive action of Soviet Russia.

Of course, you get in the correspondence of the United Nations Organization letters and statements by the Russian representative. Statements are issued by the Russian Embassy in Canberra. All of these talk about the aggressive action of the United States of America. Ever since the end of the last war the aggression that has taken place has been constant aggression by the U.S.S.R. Excluding the period when the late Mr. Stalin was alive, and taking the period when Mr. Khrushchev has been the operator in Russia, we see the violent and bloody suppression of the striking working men in East Berlin, who were rolled down by Russian tanks, and the bloody suppression of the Hungarian revolution, to nominate only two examples. Yet these people have the impertinence, inside the United Nations Organization, when caught with the loot in their hands as they were in Cuba, to say that the United States of America is the nation with aggressive intent. They were supported, as I say, by a gaggle of uncommitted or non-alined nations. I am reaching the stage of believing that the only hope for the United Nations Organization is for some of these uncommitted or nonalined Afro-Asian nations to accept some of the responsibilities that go with the privilege of sitting in the organization.

For some years now the United States of America and the United Kingdom, the two dominant Western nuclear powers, have been sitting in Geneva in an attempt to get the Russians to agree to abolition of nuclear weapons and suspension of nuclear tests, but they have had no success at all. It has been claimed by the Russians that the idea put forward by the United States and Great Britain is for a system of controlled spying. They have from time to time continued their atomic tests. Any one who cares to look at Russian newspapers, or any Communist newspapers, will find no reference to Communist testing but only references to British testing and United States testing. Yet, with this constant protest of peaceful intent by the Russians, we find Mr. Khrushchev putting atomic weapons into the Caribbean. Whilst he preaches peaceful co-existence, his actions are aggressive.

The Cuban incident is happily ended, I think because the Russians were stood up - to use a vernacular expression - by the United States of America, and they backed out extraordinarily quickly. One asks oneself why on earth the Russians took this gamble of putting atomic weapons on the island of Cuba. One suspects that they are terrified of the development of atomic weapons in the hands of other countries. However, although they sent their own officers, in essence they put atomic weapons in a place where they would cause the greatest problem because they would engage at once the United States of America. Sir Winston Churchill once described Russia as an enigma wrapped in a riddle or a riddle wrapped in an enigma. This is the most enigmatic thing that I have come across in my political experience. Here we have the Russian ambassador lying to the President of the United States of America and Russian intent in Cuba demonstrated for the world to see. Mr. Khrushchev backs out with enormous speed and removes his weapons. One can only conclude that some ghastly miscalculation was made by the Russians. What form it took, I do not know. It may have been because of internal stresses within the Communist bloc. Who knows?

This is the lesson for Australia. Dissension inside the Communist bloc is dissension between Russia and China in relation to what should have been done in Cuba.

The Chinese accused the Russian Communists of betraying Communist solidarity by backing out of Cuba. The Russians claim that they have saved peace for the world by backing out of Cuba. I suspect that if China obtains nuclear weapons, she will not be bluffed out of it so easily. The Chinese have stated publicly that they do not care whether there is a nuclear war; they are willing to accept it. If the Chinese are willing to accept a nuclear war, that will be the annihilation of mankind. Some years ago I had the opportunity of having a series of very interesting conversations with a very distinguished Australian who had spent over 30 years in China. I do not know whether he is still alive. His name was McDonald and he spent over 30 years in China. He spent some three years with Chou En-lai and Mao when they retired into Western China in 1939 or 1940; Senator Kendall can remind me of the date. He lived in caves with both these men and he knew them intimately. He told me that they had no worries at all about atomic warfare. The first atom bomb was exploded while he was still living with them. In the privacy of their caves they used to say, “ One day, we will have that, and when we have it we will control the world “. Mr. McDonald said, “ A lot of people will die. Look at what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.” They replied, “It does not matter if 100,000,000 Chinese die. China will live. If 100,000,000 Americans die, Amenca will be finished.” That is the lesson for Australia. It would be very easy to set up very close to Australia a situation parallel to the situation that the U.S.S.R. set up in Cuba.

All attempts by the Australian Labour Party to have a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere will be worthless in relation to this matter. The world has been confronted not only with the frightening problem in the Caribbean; it has been confronted also with the frightening problem of the two great Communist powers which may coalesce or diverge. I think that the ghastly miscalculation made in relation to Cuba was the result of pressures that existed inside the U.S.S.R. over the arguments as to whether the Chinese or Russian policy should be followed. AH the indicators are that Mr. Khrushchev will not follow the Chinese line. India, a member of the

British Commonwealth and one of the nonalined nations, is finding at present that, when dealing with Communists, there is no refuge in claiming that one is non-alined. That is the lesson that the United States learned in Cuba and that is the lesson that we in Australia have to learn.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- I found no great fault with Senator Cormack’s speech except on two or three points. The honorable senator said that the United States of America had brought great wealth to Cuba. I wish that he had continued and given us the story of the effect on the Cuban economy of investment in Cuba by private American investors. Had he done so and looked at the facts squarely I think he would have come to the conclusion that one of the great sources of antiAmerican feeling in Cuba was the fact that American investors were taking so much money out of the country.

The second point in Senator Cormack’s speech with which I wish to deal was his statement that certain Afro-Asian nations in the United Nations should accept some of the responsibilities as well as accepting the privileges of membership of that organization. I agree with him, because I think that the only hope of the world - in particular of the smaller nations, including Australia - is the establishment and operation of a world peace force by the United Nations. I cannot see how small nations like Australia would have a hope if big international trouble started unless there were some sort of United Nations peace force.

I disagree with the honorable senator’s criticism of the Labour Party’s policy of making the southern hemisphere a nuclearfree zone. The honorable senator is seemingly four-square behind the principle of having a nuclear-free zone in South America. I say that if it is good to have no nuclear weapons in South America it would be similarly good to have none of them anywhere in the southern hemisphere, including Australia.

The statement we are debating was read to this chamber on 6th November. The debate is more or less a post mortem on the Cuba affair. It is a pity that the Cuba affair was not discussed in another place at the height of the crisis with the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) present. The Parliament of this nation should have discussed the Cuba affair then and the right place to discuss it was the other place, where the Minister for External Affairs sits. 1 believe I am echoing the sentiments of all honorable senators when I say that a few weeks ago the world looked to be nearer to war than at any other time in the last fourteen or fifteen years. I suppose that the last time that war was so near was at the height of the Berlin blockade. I think we can all be extremely grateful that the crisis has passed. It is certainly true that the crisis is over from the military point of view, because, according to reports, all the Russian missiles and bombers have left Cuba, and the American fleet has ceased to quarantine that island. Now that that has happened we can stop to look at what the world has gained. I hope that the lesson we have learned from the Cuba affair will be of great advantage, not only to us here, but to all our allies in the Western world. I hope that we can apply that lesson to all the other countries of the Americas which, in many respects, are similar to Cuba.

Last Sunday morning, when I was waiting for a sporting session on Melbourne television station HSV7, I tuned in to a talk by a gentleman well known in the political life of Victoria - Mr. Santamaria. I heard him speak on Peru, and the picture he painted of Peru was the same as the picture which one gains from one’s reading of the position in Cuba prior to the revolution. We have to rely on what we read for our knowledge of conditions in Cuba prior to Castro’s revolution. If similar conditions are oppressing people in other countries what can one expect? The gentleman I mentioned said that in Peru 80 per cent, of the land is owned by 10 per cent, of the people. That was rather interesting. I asked myself what that meant. Such conditions apply not only in Asia, but in the majority of South American countries. Anybody who has read the history of Guatemala may ask who owns the bases of the economy there. Unless you can give people, whether they be black, brown or brindle, and irrespective of their beliefs, decent food, clothing and shelter, they will rebel in the end. What follows rebellion is what followed in Cuba.

In the main, the people who owned Cuba prior to the revolution were private American investors who controlled the whole of the island’s economy. I quote here from a book written by Huberman and Sweezy which states that the population of Cuba is approximately 6,400,000 fewer than the population of one city in America - New York. Writing on the health of the Cuban people the authors say that only 35.2 per cent, of the dwellings have running water, only 20 per cent, have inside flush toilets while 54.1 per cent, have no toilets at all. One can imagine what health would be under such conditions. They go on to deal with the education position in Cuba, and say that figures show that only 35.1 per cent, of the children in the required age group were attending schools. They say that almost two-thirds of the children were not at school. They also say that the statistics for 1949-50 gathered by the Economic and Technical Mission of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,” and published in its 1950 report, showed that while 180,370 children start in the first grade only 4,852 enter the eighth grade. The authors then give figures which show that 23.6 per cent, of the people could not pass a literacy test taken in conjunction with the 1953 census. They further state1 that almost one out of every four persons in Cuba ten years of age or over could not read or write. They say that a careful analysis of unemployment figures in the 1953 census shows that on an annual basis only 75. per cent, of the labour force in Cuba was employed. This meant in effect that one out of every four Cubans had no job. Unless that position can be rectified these insurrections will occur. Any one who has read about Cuba knows that the people who control the means of production in Cuba supported Batista, the dictator prior to Castro. When Castro took over, what was the position? America ceased buying Cuban sugar. Castro had to find some way of selling Cuba’s sugar as the country has a one-crop economy. Castro tried, too, to carry out land reforms. He took over the large farms - most of them owned by Americans. Of course, that started trouble. When the Americanowned oil refineries refused to process

Russian oil Castro took them over. You can imagine what happened then. Any possibility of friendship existing between the two countries vanished.

I believe that unless you right the economic wrongs of the ordinary people you will always strike trouble. You cannot starve people into submission. When the United States imposed a partial economic boycott the Cubans looked for friends elsewhere. What a fiasco the Bay of Pigs affair was. Would you think that any responsible government would allow such a thing to happen from its own shores? Of course, one thing led to another. I am stating only the bald facts. If the common people in any country, whether in South America or in South-East Asia, are given decent food, clothing and shelter, there will be no fear of what happened in Cuba happening in those countries. Those are the things the people want. I heard Mr. Nixon, when he was here, tell us of the vast amount of money that America was spending in foreign aid. I remember Mr. Rusk telling us how much America spent in that way. I do not doubt that at all. Our own country should give at least some percentage of its national income for the purpose of building up decent conditions for peoples in other lands. If we do not these people will turn to others to help them achieve better standards.

We saw what happened in Malaya - a country very close to us. During the war when things were not too good the Malays were promised that the huge rubber plantations would be broken up, more or less along the same lines as we break up big holdings in this country in order to settle our own people. After the war that promise was forgotten. Then, of course, when some bright people - call them what you may - wanted to know why the promises were not being kept, trouble started. Because they tried to get what they had been promised by force, according to their own light, we know how they were branded.

I suggest that these troubles will occur in more than one country unless the nations collectively do something about the problem. I recognize that it would not be fair to expect one nation in the west to carry the whole burden. I do not want for one moment to minimize the burden that it has carried, but I do not give it much credit for diplomacy. What do we find when we study the history of practically any South American country? The position in those countries is almost as bad as it was when the older nations of the world had spheres of influence in China. South American countries are being bled white; everything is being taken out of them. What was the position in Cuba? Americans controlled Cuba’s transport and its communications and even its electricity. When the fight came we know what happened. I have not been to Cuba, but I know how the people of this country would react to similar conditions. If the people of Australia, or of any Asian country were subjected even in a small way to what the Cubans were, what do you think would happen? We want to stop countries from permitting Russia to have bases on their territory, but, of course if a country, however small, is bound economically to another nation it is more or less obliged to take its dictates from that nation. Why do we place nations in the position where we force them into the hands of the Soviet or, in the case of Asia, into the hands of China?

I am pleased that up to the present no attempt has been made to make party political capital out of this debate. No party political capital could be made out of it. Labour’s position has been very clearly stated; I do not want to reiterate it. Senator McKenna stated Labour’s policy clearly, and Senator Toohey reiterated certain parts of it. I wonder why this debate has been held. It does not seem to command any great interest amongst honorable senators. I do not know the thought that was in the minds of the people who were so anxious to bring forward this subject for discussion.

Senator Buttfield:

– But your people have been complaining that it did not come on soon enough.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No, we are not saying that. I am of the opinion that the matter should have been discussed when the crisis was at its height, instead of holding a post mortem after the crisis has passed. I do not know what was in the mind of the genius who wanted it to be brought on to-night. Certainly, he will get nothing out of it.

I hope that in the councils of the West we shall be able to play our part and that we shall also be able to assist in rehabilitating the underprivileged people of the world. Many people in the world to-day want bread, and they are entitled to have it. They are also entitled to decent living standards. If they do not receive those things, they may be prepared to fight for them, and if they fight for them they may make alliances which we may not want them to make. I ask myself: Who are the greatest wrongdoers - the oppressors, or the people who allow countries to get to such a state that they will grab at any straw to better themselves? Must we allow conditions to continue until a position arises similar to that which has arisen in Cuba? I agree with Senator Toohey regarding relations between the United States and Cuba.

I am not unmindful of what America has done for this country. I believe that Australia should remain on friendly terms with the United States at all times, but surely that does not prevent us from criticizing that country, if our criticism is constructive. So far as foreign policy is concerned, are we to dot every “ i “ and cross every “ t “ just because the United States does so? That is not true friendship. In my opinion, true friendship lies in being able to tell a friend when you think he is wrong. If the Government of the United States were to look at the investments of some of its citizens in certain countries and put a curb on them, it would have more friends in the future than apparently it has in South America now. If that is not done, we may expect other incidents such as that involving Cuba. A man who is drowning does not worry about whom he clutches, nor does a man who is hungry worry about who gives him bread. Hunger is at the beginning of many of these international troubles.

I wish to add my tribute to the work of the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant. I think he did a great job in the Cuban crisis. Without his intervention, it is possible that the world would have seen a holocaust. In my opinion, the only hope for this country is to do all we can to support the United Nations and to try at all times to make it strong. I pray for the day when the United Nations will have its own army, in which we can play our part, not only by the provision of materials, but also by assistance with money. I cannot see any hope for the smaller nations of the world unless they support the United Nations. I do not mean to speak derogatively of the United States, but if ever we in this country happen to be in danger again, what guarantee of help will we have? If there were a police force under the control of the United Nations which could go to the scene of any trouble that occurred in the world, that would be a strong guarantee of support.

Let us hope that the time never comes when Australia is again in danger, but hav-ing regard to the present state of the world, one can be forgiven for wondering what will happen in, say, 30 or 40 years’ time. Nothing can stop man’s ideas from changing. History shows how man has advanced from slavery and serfdom to capitalism. Unless those who propound capitalism exercise their brains so that the capitalist system gives more to the people than it has given to date, it will go the way that history shows us other economic systems have gone. Like other honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I endorse the policy that was enunciated by the Leader of the Australian Labour Party in relation to this crisis, particularly the portion that was read by Senator McKenna. I have no desire to read it again, having regard to the time. In conclusion, I say that the policy of the Australian Labour Party shows where we shall stand in the event of a conflict between the East and the West.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- The Senate has been discussing this evening an event which may well prove to be one of the great turning points in history. For the first time since World War II., the Soviet Union, whose aggressive activities since that time have enslaved hundreds of millions of people, has been faced by a determined and powerful opponent which, on 23rd October, 1962, drew a line beyond which it was not prepared to see this aggressive antagonist go. President Kennedy pointed out on that date that, despite assurances - since proved to be lies - given by the Russian Ambassador, Gromyko. the Soviet was in fact secretly installing nuclear missile bases in the island of Cuba, those bases being aimed at the elimination of American cities. Accordingly, the President announced that Cuba would be blockaded until al] the offensive missile bases and rockets had been returned to the Soviet whence they came.

I want, Mr. President, to strike a novel note in this debate by actually referring to the statement that is before the Senate. The Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick), on 6th November last, in a most comprehensive coverage of the events which had taken place in the preceding fortnight, pointed out that the arming of Cuba was being done, as he said, in flagrant contravention of assurances which had been given to the President at the highest level. He went on to say that the Soviet Union was rapidly constructing and equipping offensive missile sites and introducing jet bombers which would be capable of striking with nuclear weapons against North and South America. I draw particular attention to his reference to South America because it indicates clearly how useless, how worthless the Labour Party’s policy of a nuclear-free zone is in this troubled world at the moment. The Minister for External Affairs then pointed out that the Australian Government, very rapidly, on 23rd October, took its place alongside its great and powerful American ally when the Prime Minister commended the President’s resolute stand and gave the assurance at least of Australia’s moral support in the crisis which was developing. It is significant to note that the President has written to the Prime Minister expressing his appreciation of the promptitude with which Australia publicly stated her support. I think it is important that we should realize that, whilst the United States of America does not need our material support, she does need our moral support in the councils of the nations, and the Government is to be commended for stepping in so smartly and indicating how complete was our moral support of the United States. If one looks at the statement made by the Prime Minister on 23rd October one notes that it is free from equivocation, that it clearly and squarely lays the blame for the crisis developing in Cuba where it belongs - on the Soviet Union. I am not one of those who can give praise to Khrushchev for his generosity or for the sense of responsibility which he displayed in withdrawing from Cuba. I do not think much of a burglar who, when confronted by the householder with a pistol, takes to his heels. I do not think he deserves any credit for that, and surely that is a fair analogy. I must say that I was extremely disappointed with the statement made by the distinguished Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr. Calwell) on this serious international matter. When one peruses his statement as reported on page 1781 of “Hansard” for 23rd October, one observes that there is not one word in it which seeks to indicate to our American allies any suggestion that we support them in their difficulties. There is not one word in the entire statement which suggests that, as between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, the Australian Labour Party backs the United States of America. For instance, Mr. Calwell does not state that in fact Soviet bases were being erected. He says that President Kennedy made a statement with respect to air bases which he believed were being constructed. Later on in his statement, Mr. Calwell says -

The President lays the blame for the sudden crisis on Russia’s intrusion into the western hemisphere.

There is no suggestion by him that he joins with President Kennedy in allotting the blame where it truly and justly belongs. That is a contrast with the Prime Minister’s concluding statement in which he says -

We hope that his statement and the steps to be taken pursuant to it will bring home to the Soviet Union the nature of the consequences which may Sow from its overseas policies. Indeed the whole matter will serve to test whether the Soviet Union’s constant advocacy of peace possesses either sincerity or substance.

The role which was played by the United Nations in this matter has been exaggerated somewhat by honorable senators opposite. I believe that all credit must be given the Acting Secretary-General, who was tireless in his efforts to bring about an end to the dispute, but I do not think we should forget that the actual communications which resulted in the settlement of the dispute passed directly between President Kennedy and Khrushchev. They did not go through the United Nations Organization at all. Two or three resolutions were propounded by certain nations at the United Nations Organization in New York, but they were not the basis upon which the settlement was effected. To say as Senator Toohey did, that the United States of America broke the rules of the United Nations Organization by acting promptly-

Senator Toohey:

– I said they both did.

Senator HANNAN:

– 1 deny that the United States of America did anything which was unreasonable in the circumstances. We have seen a number of cases in which, with the best will in the world, the United Nations Organization was unable to do anything. Why, we have only to think of the Hungarian incident when the Soviet and the Kadar regime simply refused to allow United Nations delegates to enter Hungary to see what was transpiring. He would indeed be a very poor president, a president who had little respect for his nation and little respect for the whole free world, who would tolerate this aggregation of offensive weapons aimed at his capital cities. In a calculated manner, President Kennedy made it clear that, regardless of Soviet threats or actions, he proposed to see that those missiles were removed. I think the nations of the free world must be grateful to him for that. It must have been a lonely and powerful stand to take. It must have been a decision as portentous as the one taken by General Eisenhower on D-day when he had to decide whether to go or not to go. He must have been a most determined President to so bluntly and openly undertake to break a lance with Khrushchev over Cuba, and in taking that action he was not only the defender of his own nation but, as so many countries throughout the world depend on the United States of America, he was the champion of millions of free men and women everywhere.

Senator Gorton:

– Particularly in the South American States.

Senator HANNAN:

– Exactly, and it is pleasing to note that they have not been slow in making public their appreciation of the action which the President took.

I come back to a matter which has occasioned me some concern. It is the fact that in Australia we lack a bi-partisan foreign policy. In Great Britain, the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaitskell, has gone out of his way to make it quite clear that he places the defence of bis country before party politics. But, for soma strange reason, the members of the Australian Labour Party who sit opposite us in this chamber seem incapable of criticizing the Soviet Union in globo. They seem unable to criticize it without bringing in some extraneous matter which does not run parallel to the subject under discussion. Even after the Soviet raped Hungary in 1956, the Australian Labour Party did not come out with any clear-cut criticism of that barbarity. On the other hand, its members in this chamber blamed the British and French landings at Suez for the barbarity in Budapest. They followed that up at the biennial conference of the party shortly after when they did make a criticism of the Russian action in Hungary. They said that it was bad, but they equated it with the British action in Cyprus and the French action in Algeria.

I have always believed that it is a great pity that the security of Australia is liable to be prejudiced by the inability of the major political parties to come together and develop a bipartisan foreign policy. There are quite a few people in this country who do not subscribe to the economic ideas of the present Government but are so violently opposed to the defence policy, or rather the lack of it, of the Labour Party and so violently opposed to that party’s foreign policy that in no set of circumstances would they give it their support. The gap between the approach of the Government parties and the approach of the Labour Party in this country is far too wide. My recollection of the foreign policy of the Labour Party, as set out at the last three biennial conferences, is that the recognition of red China heads the list. It is a cardinal point of the Labour Party’s foreign policy. That party says, in effect: “ Let us make friends with red China, and then all will be well in this part of the world. If we are nice and kind to the red Chinese, they will not do anything of which we disapprove.” In this chamber a couple of weeks ago, while the red Chinese were actually engaged in attacking India, a member of the Commonwealth, an honorable senator opposite stood up and demanded the recognition of red China.

When Senator Kennelly was speaking - I do not think he meant this as seriously as it sounded - he asked this question: If we were in danger, what guarantee do we have that the United States of America, which we support so strongly, would come to our aid? The Anzus treaty may not be the most water-tight treaty in the whole wide world, but at least we have that treaty which says that if this country or New Zealand is attacked by a Communist power in the Pacific the United States of America will come to our aid. I direct the attention of the Senate to the fact that this is the first occasion in peace-time on which that country has given such a pledge to a foreign country. I believe that reflects the great amount of confidence that that country has in Australia and in the Prime Minister and the other people who are running this country. The Seato treaty is under constant fire from honorable senators opposite. It has been described as a paper tiger and a treaty upon which little reliance can be placed. But, with all its faults and all its deficiencies, I do not believe that the Government of Thailand, which has been a beneficiary under it within the last few months and has received both military and material assistance, regards the Seato treaty as a paper tiger.

In this world at the present time we have to stand up and be counted. We cannot continually sit on the fence. We cannot hope that by saying nothing we will get into no trouble, and that if we are attacked somebody will come to our aid regardless of our own worth and regardless of our own endeavours. The great example to us in our time of the folly of neutralism surely must be Mr. Nehru’s government in India. If anybody bent over backwards not to annoy Communist countries and if anybody went out of his way to snub and be rude to the countries of the West, it was Mr. Nehru. He did those things in the vain hope that that course of conduct would protect him from aggression by his violent neighbour. In the last few weeks we have seen how utterly worthless that policy has been to India. I suppose that India is the model of neutralism in the world. It has had to turn around and beg from the despised Western countries the necessary arms and ammunition to help to stem Communist aggression.

That point also emphasises the necessity for Australia to take a positive line in its defence arrangements. I have made a passing reference to the suicidal folly of a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere. It is true that Khrushchev has recommended that the Pacific should have an atom-free zone. It is also true that a phony conference for peace and disarmament held at Tokyo recently recommended the same thing. Again it is true that that is the Labour Party’s policy. That may be pure coincidence. The Labour Party says to our great and powerful friends: “ You must protect us from a foreign aggressor who may use nuclear weapons, but you must not bring any of those horrible, nasty devices here. Keep them in your place and defend us from afar “. That is such arrant nonsense that one has only to state the proposition in order to see its absurdity. It is true that, whilst the free world is outnumbered in conventional arms, only the threat of a massive nuclear deterrent has kept western Europe free since the Second World War. If it were not for the potential strength of American nuclear retaliation, I am sure that the countries of western Europe long since would have been swept into the Soviet net.

If the Cuban incident has done anything, it has emphasized the evil and deceitful nature of world communism. In those circumstances I find it incredible that an honorable senator should stand up and demand that known Communists should be allowed into Australia, that they should be allowed to be naturalized and that they should be given all the privileges of citizenship. I could scarcely believe that any honorable senator could be as utterly irresponsible as Senator Cavanagh was when he made those remarks in this chamber a couple of weeks ago. I do not know for whom he can be solicitous. Does he wish to build up and strengthen the hives of subversion that already are busy and active in this country?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order. I take this point of order reluctantly. I direct your attention, Madam Acting Deputy President, to the fact that Senator Hannan is right off the subject before the Senate. He is referring to another debate that took place previously. I ask you to bring him back to the subject under discussion.

Senator HANNAN:

– I was merely pointing out that the Cuban crisis emphasized the necessity for Australia to be cautious of subversion inside the country and aggression outside it. In view of the necessity for regarding communism as the enemy which it is, I repeat that I find it incredible that an honorable senator opposite should stand up and criticize the Government for refusing to allow Communist migrants to enter Australia.

Senator Gorton:

– And to become naturalized.

Senator HANNAN:

– I commend the Government on making that decision. I want to go a little further in relation to the incredible things that happen in this chamber. On 7th November, we were dealing with the defence estimates, and we found that four honorable senators opposite were most critical of the Government for its close association with the United States of America in defence arrangements, particularly in Western Australia. It is not surprising that the Communist “Tribune” of 14th November waxed lyrical over the remarks of honorable senators opposite. I am not on the mailing list of this publication, but I quote the heading on the report which read, “ Labour Senators Hit Out at Government’s Pro-U.S. Grovelling”. I want to know whether this is the form of constructive criticism in -which, according to Senator Kennelly, the Labour Party indulges when it refers to the United States of America. The report in the “ Tribune “ stated -

In a lively debate last week Labour senators criticized the Menzies Government for handing over Western Australian bases to the U.S.A. and for its subservience to the U.S. Administration in supporting the blockade of Cuba.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wedgwood). - Order! The honorable senator cannot quote from a newspaper.

Senator HANNAN:

– Then my recollection of the debate in this chamber was that an honorable senator named five or six defence works. I did not intend to mention names but I have to do so now. Senator Cant referred to five or six defence bases.

Senator Cant:

– I rise to order. The business before the Senate relates to Cuba. What has Western Australia to do with Cuba? I ask for a ruling.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! I ask Senator Hannan to connect his remarks with Cuba.

Senator HANNAN:

– I will connect these matters. As Litvinov, whose doctrines would appeal to Senator Cant, has said, “ Peace is indivisible and foreign policy is indivisible”. We cannot look at the Cuban crisis without looking at its implications in relation to American and Australian foreign policy wherever they may meet. It is, of course, quite possible that we may have a Cuba in the Pacific. The strongest political party in the islands to the north of Australia is probably the Communist Party. In those circumstances it might very well be that only the defence bases of the United States established in Western Australia will stand between this nation and annihilation, and in those circumstances I find it incredible that Senator Cant could object to the installation of American bases in Western Australia.

Senator McKenna:

– I rise to order. Is Senator Hannan in order in alluding to a debate that took place during this session of the Parliament on a matter that is not now before the Chair? Standing Order No. 413 states -

No Senator shall allude to any Debate of the same Session upon a Question or Bill not being then under discussion . . .

I suggest that in adverting to a discussion that took place on an entirely different matter, the honorable senator is out of order, and I ask for a ruling.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! I ask Senator Hannan to confine his remarks to the subject-matter before the Chair.

Senator HANNAN:

– Very well, Mr. President. It is easy to understand why the Opposition would like to have these disgraceful remarks buried in obscurity. I come to the matters that arose, so to speak, the morning after the night before in the Cuban crisis. What lessons are to be learned from the fact that 30 Soviet nuclear warheads and twenty bombers, crated and uncrated, were withdrawn; that missile bases are being dismantled and that Mr. Khrushchev in a letter volunteered to the American naval authorities that he would make things easier for the naval inspection? What conclusions are we to draw from this rather extraordinary volte face - this extraordinary climb down? I think the inference is this: For the first time in history, the Soviet has been confronted with an antagonist with both the power and the will to resist its bullying tactics.

At the close of the Second World War, there were many people, of whom I was one, who felt most apprehensive at the control that the Soviet Union had already obtained over so much of Europe. The Potsdam, Yalta and Teheran agreements were not such as to induce confidence in those of us who have been cognisant for many years of the evils of international communism.

When the first resistance to Soviet dictation took place in 1947-48 at the Berlin airlift, there were many who said we were being provocative, and that we must not be rude to the Soviet bully. They said that if we flew aircraft into Berlin and maintained the food supply for the beleaguered people of that city, it would be provocative and would start a war. In truth and in fact it did none of those things. The Soviet climbed down, and although a number of gallant airmen lost their lives, the position was maintained. I commend the statement that has been made by the AttorneyGeneral, and think that it sets forth in statesman-like manner Australia’s attitude to this important question.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The statement by the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) on the Cuban situation has been circulated, and has been read assiduously by most honorable senators. I intend to quote from the statement later, but I should like to make the observation first that the remarks made by Senator Toohey about the John Birch Society were completely lost on Senator Hannan. This debate has produced an interesting examination of the situation that now exists concerning the Cuban crisis. I believe that there are people who regret the solution of the Cuban situation. I believe that the John Birches, Mr. Spanel, the Latec Association of the United States of America and the Senator Hannans are people who secretly believe that the world would be a better place if kept in chaos and confusion.

Senator Hannan:

Mr. President, I find the honorable senator’s statement offensive to me personally and ask that it be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator O’Byrne will withdraw his statement.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– To what statement does the honorable senator object?

Senator Hannan:

Senator O’Byrne should withdraw his statement that I am sorry the Cuban situation has been solved.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I withdraw the statement and say that the John Birches and the Spanels who spread inflammatory and exaggerated opinions and views on many important international problems are doing no service to mankind. To-night in the Senate we face a most interesting situation. The tumult and shouting have died. The captains and kings have departed temporarily. We are examining in perspective what the Minister for External Affairs said on 6th November. He concluded on this note -

Caution and vigilance will be required until acceptable solutions to the broader questions affecting the peace and security of the world are found.

This does not mean that Australia will not enthusiastically support every bona fide move for the relief of tension and for general and complete disarmament and in the meantime for the cessation of nuclear testing. Australia will continue to do so, but it does mean that every proposal must be examined realistically and due safeguards for performance insisted upon at every stage.

Meanwhile, we may hope that - if the Cuban crisis is successfully resolved, and we are not yet out of the wood - its resolution may give a new impetus to the search for solutions to these broader questions. The realistic appreciation of American determination shown by the Soviet leaders and their readiness to respond to it could perhaps offer some hope of this. The most important thing now is for the Cuban bases to be dismantled, under proper inspection, in an orderly and systematic way, avoiding further East-West clashes. If this can be done I myself would not exclude the hope that the atmosphere in future may show some improvement over that in the past.

The world was then at the brink. We saw a supreme example of brinkmanship, if I may put it that way. The crisis is over. The missiles have been sent back. The bombers have flown off. The armada has been dispersed. Tension has been reduced to the stage at which assurances have been given that the United States of America will respect the territorial integrity of Cuba. This is a tremendous victory for the forces of good, peace and humanity in the world. In this post-mortem examination, each of us should approach the problem of consolidating this little gain that mankind has made in an enlightened way towards realizing that problems can be solved without the final annihilation that must certainly come if thermo-nuclear war is unleashed. The assurance that no invasion of Cuba will take place should give time for contemplation of methods of improving the situation in Cuba itself, which is the responsibility of the Western world. I realize that this is a festering sore in our midst. It needs proper treatment, not by the knife, the gun or the club, but by the application of the greater things that the Western world has available.

Senator Kennelly mentioned some vital statistics on Cuba. Although the United States of America was displaced from its position as a sovereign government, its capital and finance played a most important part in the politics of Cuba over the past 50 or 60 years. It was more or less a joke around the world that Cuba was only a sugar republic and a playground for American investors and holiday makers.

Senator Maher:

– It all brings grist to the mill for Cuba.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. As Senator Kennelly said, 23.6 per cent of Cubans could not pass a literacy test. Only one of four persons at the age of ten can read or write.

Senator Maher:

– Whose fault is that?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Whose fault is it that any one of us is here? Whose fault is it that typhoid fever has broken out in Alice Springs? We cannot determine whose fault it is. We must set about overcoming the problem. The Western world could show that it has good faith by assisting Cubans to overcome ignorance and exploitation which give rise to dictatorship. The human spirit, given opportunity, will express itself.

Senator Gorton:

– What a pity Castro did not follow that line.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Castro is the effect of a set of causes, just as Batista was the effect of a set of causes. There is no doubt that Cuba is an unhappy situation for the Western world, and its proximity to the United States of America highlights it. If it were near Macquarie Island or off the tip of Africa, perhaps these statistics could be forgotten, or pushed into a pigeonhole to be dealt with in the future. Because of Cuba’s location it is too much of a luxury for us to allow this situation to continue, providing a seed-bed for revolution. The basic needs are food, clothing and shelter. Castro’s appeal is being answered by the people. This enabled him to overcome the invasion at the Bay of Pigs. That in itself was unconscionable from the point of view of the Western world when we think that with all the security regulations in force an invasion of that magnitude could be mounted and carried out unknown to other people.

Debate interrupted.

page 1578

ADJOURNMENT

Immigration - Naturalization Ceremonies-

Trans-Australian Railway - The Senate -

Royal Australian Air Force Regulations

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I want to take this opportunity to direct the attention of the Senate to a happening in Western Australia in the week that ended on 17th November, when a group of Spanish immigrants demonstrated against their conditions and their lack of opportunities to obtain employment since coming to Australia. In company with one of my colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, I visited the Holden migrant centre to have a look at the conditions under which those migrants are living. I found that, despite the fact that Australia has been in the field of immigration for some years now, we are still housing migrants in the same conditions as those in which we housed displaced persons many years ago. There has been no improvement. For instance, we saw a family living in a room measuring 12 feet by 12 feet which contained three single beds and a cot for a baby, as well as a double wardrobe. This meant that the occupants had literally no room in which to move. Yet that was the only accommodation they could get. Most of the accommodation in the centre is not flywired. Although this is sheep country where flies are particularly bad, the department is doing nothing to remove this menace to the health of those living there, who include a large number of women and children who have to live in close association with one another. lt is stated that the demonstration, which took place in Northam, arose from the fact that the migrants were unable to obtain work. It was subsequently stated that they were refusing to take the kind of work offered to them. Those people are brought here as unskilled labour and are being offered work which will take them away from the migrant centre. This means that families have to be split up, and that the breadwinner can visit his family only at week-ends. This, of course, casts a burden for fares upon him, and the wage of an unskilled worker, which is little above the minimum wage set by the arbitration authorities, will not stand that extra load. The migrants do not want to be separated from their families. They were brought to Western Australia at the urgent request of the State Government, which said that there was so much progress within the State that otherwise there would be a shortage of labour. We find now that Western Australia is unable to provide work for these migrants, and groups of them are being sent to South Australia for employment.

Senator Buttfield:

– A good prosperous State, South Australia.

Senator CANT:

– It is a prosperous State in many ways, but much of its prosperity is due to the nature of the country and not to the people who are running the State. The facts are that those people were brought to Western Australia at the behest of the State Liberal Government, and they are now stranded there unable to obtain employment. I discussed the employment position with an officer of the Department of Labour and National Service and he told me that there was a certain amount of work available, but none of it carried accommodation with it. That is one of the reasons why the migrants are refusing to take employment offered to them. They are demanding £25 a week.

They say they were told in Spain that the wage they could expect to receive in Australia would be £20 a week. I do not know whether or not they were so informed, but I do know that £20 a week is about the1 average wage in Western Australia. I wonder whether these people were told that they could expect the average or whether they were told that they could expect the minimum wage. It is quite wrong to bring completely unskilled people to this country after advising them that they would be able to get the average wage when that kind of worker, even with overtime earnings added, is able to earn only the minimum wage. I hope that the Minister can see his way clear to lay on the table copies of the propaganda and inducements that are held out to these people in Spain so as to get them to come here. No doubt such propaganda would be written in a language that the Spaniards could understand but it would not be difficult for honorable senators to have translations made for them at the university. We would then have some idea of the inducements held out to those people who demonstrated at Northam.

It is time that the Commonwealth Government improved the conditions for migrants who come to Australia. I refer particularly to the Holden migrant centre. It is time that we progressed beyond herding people as cattle were herded into trucks. Surely we are past that. That is the stage we were at in the early days of the immigration scheme, when we did not have the resources to cope easily with the number of displaced persons who wanted to get out of concentration camps in Europe and were prepared to accept anything. We should look at this matter in a proper way, and we should not bring people here unless we are able to provide them with work and with homes for their families. It is said by the authorities at Holden that these people cannot expect to be provided with homes for at least two years. They will have to go on to the general waiting list of the State housing commission. That means that what was in the first instance established as a transient migrant centre has now become a resident migrant centre. The men are expected to live apart from their families for up to two years. The Government should be trying to do something better than that in these days.

I want also to bring to the attention of the Minister a letter written to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Downer) on 3rd August, 1962, which has not yet been replied to. It concerns the activities of people at naturalization ceremonies. The correspondent is Mr. C. J. Jamieson, M.L.A., a member of the lower house in Western Australia. He first took up this matter with the Western Australian Minister for Immigration, Mr. S. Bovell. He was unable to get any satisfactory reply in regard to the matter. It appears from the correspondence that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Cleaver) is using naturalization ceremonies conducted in Western Australia as mediums for disseminating political propaganda. I have here the type of card that is placed in the Bible of each person who is being naturalized. Correspondence is also placed in the Bibles at the same time. We all know that naturalization ceremonies are rather important for the people being naturalized; but they may become, of course, political arenas for members of Parliament. One can imagine the position that could arise if the ten senators of a State, plus each member of the House of Representatives in the State, as well as State members of both the Lower and Upper Houses were all to attempt to use this medium for propagating their own particular political philosophy.

Senator Wright:

– It would be no worse than your taking advantage of this forum for this humbug.

Senator CANT:

– Everything is humbug to the honorable senator, but the only humbug is the honorable senator himself.

Senator Hannaford:

– You are not suggesting that these naturalization ceremonies are political forums?

Senator CANT:

– I am suggesting that, and I am also suggesting that it is time Ministers replied to correspondence. We have had complaints in this place about Ministers not replying to correspondence, and about Ministers taking too long to reply. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) was taken to task a while ago for taking too long to answer a question.

The correspondence to which I have referred was written to the Minister on 3rd August. The local member in Western

Australia, who represents a section of the people in that State is entitled to have his correspondence at least acknowledged. When he makes a complaint to a Federal Minister, it is up to that Minister either to acknowledge his complaint or advise him that there is no substance in it, and do nothing more about it.

Senator Prowse:

– To which Minister are you referring?

Senator CANT:

– If you woke up at the right time you would know.

I direct attention to another piece of correspondence dated 20th July, 1962, again under the signature of Mr. Jamieson. This letter was written to Mr. Opperman, the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In this correspondence Mr. Jamieson raised several complaints about the TransAustralian railway. He complained about the accommodation provided for people travelling on that railway, and the type, quantity and cost of meals that are provided. He directed the Minister’s attention to this because of the use that is made of the Trans-Australian railway by tourists. He asked the Minister to have a look at what was happening and to try to rectify the position. Mr. Jamieson wrote also to the Minister for Tourism in the State Parliament, who is also the Premier of Western Australia. Mr. Opperman, the Minister for Transport in this Parliament, failed to acknowledge the correspondence. A local member of a State Parliament is entitled to receive an answer to his correspondence and I hope that the Ministers representing in this chamber the two Ministers to whom I have referred, will direct their attention to these matters.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I was interested in what Senator Cant had to say. I am glad to know that he recognizes how keen and energetic the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Cleaver) is. I quite agree with the honorable senator that Mr. Cleaver would be representing the Government and the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Downer) at the naturalization ceremony.

Senator Cant:

– He was not representing the Minister at all.

Senator HENTY:

– He would be. He is a keen member and a man who attends to his duties. These naturalization ceremonies are attended by the Commonwealth representative in the area.

Senator Cant:

asked what the position would be if the ten senators of a State and members of the other place turned up and wanted to make a speech. I remind the Senate that these ceremonies are in the hands of the mayor or the chairman of the municipality. It is his job to decide who is to speak.

Senator Cant:

– No one said anything about speaking.

Senator HENTY:

– You asked what would happen if ten senators turned up.

Senator Cant:

– No, I did not.

Senator HENTY:

– You do not know half of what you say, that is the trouble with you. These ceremonies are in the hands of the mayor of the municipality. I am sure that if ten senators turned up and all of them wanted to speak the mayor, if he had any sense, would do the right thing and not let any of them speak.

Senator Cant raised a couple of other matters. He referred to a Mr. Jamieson, M.L.A. I have always been taught that there are horses for courses. State members of Parliament should stick to State problems. If Mr. Jamieson wanted to deal with a federal problem, if he had had any confidence in Senator Cant, he would have dealt with it through him. If he did not have any confidence in Senator Cant he would do it directly. I would advise him to do it through Senator Cant. The matter that has been mentioned has nothing to do with a State member at all. These are federal problems. State members would not want federal members entering the realm of State affairs and dealing with State problems. I am sure that if the honorable senator thought that a State member had any confidence in him he would have said, “ You direct this through me. I will write to the Minister. Then the thing will be done properly and be in order.” State members should not interfere in federal matters. There are federal members to do these things. I offer that advice to the honorable senator.

Senator Cant:

– I will deal with you to morrow when I get “ Hansard “ and see what 1 said.

Senator HENTY:

– The honorable senator does not know what he did say; that is what I said previously. I said that you do not know what you are talking about half the time; you have to wait until you see it in “ Hansard “.

Senator Cant:

– I know what I said.

Senator HENTY:

– On the question of the migrant camp, if the honorable senator had given me some indication that he was going to raise this matter I would have obtained some information for him. As this matter appeared in the press and I thought it might be raised, I obtained a note from the secretary to the Minister. I am informed that there was a mild demonstration at this migrant camp. The purpose of the demonstration was to direct attention to the fact that the migrants desired employment, just as Senator Cant said. There were approximately 60 or 70 migrants involved in the demonstration which took the form of a march through the main street of Northam at approximately 1 p.m. After the demonstration those who participated in it held a fiesta as had been previously arranged. The only other thing I would ask is whether Senator Cant is advising the department not to send migrants to Western Australia.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– When an honorable senator raises a matter in this place, Mr. President, I think he is entitled to be dealt with courteously. Surely a naturalization ceremony is not the place for blatant propaganda on behalf of a particular person.

Senator Hannaford:

– We do not know anything about it.

Senator KENNELLY:

– He knew about it. He is a cheeky fellow, and I do not like cheeky fellows. If a member of one political party can use the occasion of a naturalization ceremony for high-pressure tactics, a similar opportunity should be open to members of all parties. I do not think that kind of thing should happen. I hope that, in future, my colleagues who have matters to raise in the Senate will direct them to other Ministers. In that way, they may have a chance of receiving courteous treatment. I do not think that any honorable senator should be treated in the way that Senator Henty treated Senator Cant to-night. Surely the Minister does not contend that a citizen should not write to a Federal Minister, regardless of the portfolio that he may hold. I consider that Senator Henty’s remarks were most unbecoming a Minister of the Crown.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I wish to bring before the Senate and to the notice of the Government regulations which apply to the Royal Australian Air Force and other defence services regarding the burial of servicemen who die or are killed while serving in Australia. I request the Government to consider an amendment of the regulations to permit the body of such a serviceman to be returned to his home State for burial, if that is the wish of his relatives or next-of-kin. This is a matter in respect of which blame cannot be attached to any government. I think that the present position has always applied. A serviceman who dies or is killed while on service in Australia is buried in the locality in which he is at the time of his death.

I wish to bring before the Government the case of a young man who enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force in Western Australia, at the age of sixteen years. His parents assigned him to the charge of the Air Force, as it was necessary for them to do. At the age of seventeen years, when serving at a technical training centre at Wagga Wagga, in New South Wales, and while on approved leave, from the centre, he was killed in an accident. The Air Force authorities were most considerate and courteous. Nothing more could have been done for the bereaved parents than was done by the Air Force authorities. However, because of these antiquated regulations, the parents found that if they wanted to take the body back to Western Australia for burial, an amount of only £60 would be allowed by way of an ex gratia payment. The parents were brought over from Perth, but had to return home. They came over again for the funeral. I repeat that the Air Force gave them all the assistance that it was permitted to give under the regulations. Quotes were obtained to cover the cost of returning the boy’s body to Western Australia, and the lowest one was £250. Considerable expenditure was incurred by the Air Force because of act of grace payments in relation to the interment of the lad at Wagga Wagga.

I understand that the driver of the vehicle in which the young man was killed was intoxicated at the time and subsequently was brought before a court. The only way in which the parents may attempt to recover the expenses incurred in relation to the accident is to take legal action under the New South Wales third party insurance legislation. The boy’s grave is an unmarked one. It will not be tended. This is not an unusual instance. Some time ago, a young man was killed while taking part in an air pageant in Western Australia. He was buried at Karrakatta cemetery. His grave is unmarked. His parents cannot afford to go to Western Australia to visit the grave. I suggest that the expenses involved in burying this young man would be no greater than those involved in returning his body to his home State. Last week, letters appeared in the Western Australian newspapers asking that the boy’s grave be not neglected, and that people should be kind enough to place flowers on it and give it some attention. This is a deplorable state of affairs. It arises because of the antiquated regulations. The people of Western Australia have responded to the request to tend this young man’s grave, but this kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on forever.

I suppose that Mr. and Mrs. McRae ultimately will have their son’s grave appropriately marked, if they can afford to do so. Mr. and Mrs. McRae’s fares to and from Wagga Wagga were paid on two occasions, and the fare of an attendant for Mrs. McRae, whose health had broken down, also was paid. The total cost involved probably was considerably more than the cost that would have been incurred in returning the lad’s body to Western Australia. In addition to the cost of fares, there was the cost of accommodation for Mr. and Mrs. McRae, which amounted to £33; accommodation for a sister who came as an attendant amounted to £7; and there were other expenses of £5 each for the three persons, amounting to £15. In total, the actual expenditure incurred by Mr. McRae as a result of this unfortunate accident to his young son while serving with the Air Force was £150. As I have said, the only means of recovery is to take civil action in the New South Wales courts.

I ask the Government to review the regulations and to bring them in line with those that apply in the armed services of other civilized countries. I know that the bodies of two American servicemen who were killed in Australia recently were flown back to the United States at the request of their next-of-kin. Yet, we cannot return to the home State the body of a minor who was killed in an accident while serving with the Air Force. The body must be buried in the State where the death occurred, in an unmarked grave. I admit that generous ex gratia payments, which perhaps cost more than it would cost to do the right thing, are made.

Senator Gorton:

– What do you mean by ex gratia payments?

Senator COOKE:

– 1 should say, for instance, that there would be no obligation to pay for a person to accompany the wife. I think both sides of the Senate will agree that the most generous of treatment must be accorded in circumstances such as these, but the extent to which that generosity can be offered is restricted by antiquated regulations which were drawn up in the horseandbuggy days. For that reason, I suggest that the regulations should be reviewed. The men in the forces feel that they should be reviewed with a view to enabling more generous treatment to be accorded in these tragic cases and, to support my claim, I quote the following from the Commanding Officer’s letter to me: -

Referring to the return of a deceased member to his home State, this action would be welcomed by all those who find themselves in circumstances similar to yours. The R.A.A.F. would be pleased to comply if it could be granted the authority.

I ask the Minister to suggest to the Government that the regulations be revised to authorize the return of the bodies of deceased persons to the place of enlistment so that they may be buried in a civilized manner in marked graves, which may be looked after by the next-of-kin and other relatives and friends.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I rise merely because my colleague in another place, Mr. Opperman, has attracted some criticism for his alleged failure to reply to correspondence. The complaint was made by Senator Cant, presumably at the instigation of Mr. C. J. Jamieson, M.L.A., of Perth, Western Australia. The honorable senator did not mention that Mr. Jamieson was a Labour member of the Legislative Assembly. Nor did he make any reference to the not irrelevant fact that Mr. Jamieson is a past president of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Labour Party, and that he is a very active Labour propagandist in Perth.

Senator Hendrickson:

– There is nothing wrong with that, is there?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Not at all. I merely mention the fact that Senator Cant did not tell us that. I say that this is nothing more than a political manoeuvre, and I say that with the knowledge that every one who knows Mr. Jamieson knows him to be a hard-headed politician who is as hard as flint and as rough as goats’ knees. He is a man who knows all the tricks in the political game, and he is prepared to use them at the drop of a hat. I suggest that evidence of the truth of what I am saying is to be found in the fact that, having written the correspondence to which he put his name, Mr. Jamieson carefully passed it on to Senator Cant so that Senator Cant might rise on the motion for the adjournment of this place for the purpose of creating some political bubble. We are all over 21 years of age in this place, and we are all fairly experienced politicians. It is idle for any one to think that we will accept this sort of political manoeuvre as being the highminded type of thing that Senator Cant would have us believe it to be. It is not a high-minded thing at all; it is merely a vehicle with which to attempt to gain some political advantage. At least, Senator Cant thought it to be a suitable vehicle with which to gain some political advantage.

The honorable senator referred to the meals and service on the trans-continental railway. Let me tell him that experienced world travellers have described the transcontinental train as one of the finest in the world, and one that provides one of the best services in the world. It is some time now since I had the pleasure of travelling on it, but I do know that when I did travel on it the meals provided were impeccable. As recently as last week, I discussed this train with many people who travelled on it to Perth for the purpose of seeing the Commonwealth Games, and they had nothing but praise to offer for the service they received. All described it as a first-class train.

I shall be pleased to take this matter up with my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, because I know that he, like me, would be greatly alarmed if it could be shown that there was any foundation at all for the allegation that the standard of service had slipped to the extent that Senator Cant’s remarks might lead one to believe it had.

I come now to the card which the honorable member for Swan in another place Mr. Cleaver, apparently distributed in some way or another at a naturalization ceremony.

Senator Cant:

– He put it in the Bible which was handed to the immigrants.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I was under the impression that the card was some piece of political propaganda, that it was a “How to Vote “ card, or something of that nature. That is probably why Senator Cant did not respond to my invitation to read the card. For the benefit of the Senate, I will read what is printed on it. On one side, the card carries a picture of Mr. Cleaver, a picture which, I might say, does Mr. Cleaver ample justice. On that side, too, are printed the words -

You can count on a friendly welcome from your Federal member, Dick Cleaver, M.P., 1142a Albany Highway, Bentley. Telephone: 68 1233.

Printed on it also are the words -

Seek his advice on Commonwealth problems.

What is more natural than that a member who is doing his job should be getting round his electorate making himself known to new residents in his area, particularly migrants, with the multitudinous difficulties that they encounter? Here is a thoughtful, kindly, energetic member asking them, if they want any assistance at all, to get in touch with him. Printed on the card are also these words -

My job is helping people.

So that people will not be misled into taking to’ him problems which are State problems, Mr. Cleaver has carefully had printed on the reverse side of the card a list of those departments which are administered by the Commonwealth. I suggest that a card of this nature is nothing more than a helpful innovation introduced by Mr. Cleaver for the benefit of newcomers to his electorate in an attempt to lessen as far as possible the obvious difficulties which newcomers to this country might encounter.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) said that Senator Cant could write him a letter, but he would not guarantee that he would reply. But I am really surprised at the reply that was given by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) to Senator Cant. Every honorable senator recognizes the ability and knowledge of Senator Henty. I suppose that he is one of the most intelligent men in this Parliament. In order to do himself justice, he should explain the correct procedure in regard to these problems of innocent people like Senator Cant and Mr. Jamieson, who do not realize the correct procedure. Senator Henty never gives anybody credit for being sincere in presenting problems to this Parliament. He could have answered Senator Cant as a responsible Minister should, instead of using the language that he used which, in my opinion, was not only insulting to this chamber, to you, Sir, and to the Opposition, but also degrading to Senator Henty himself. There are problems connected with immigration.

Senator Paltridge has just apologized, no doubt for the way in which Senator Henty answered Senator Cant. He apologized on behalf of Senator Henty. He suggested that the card, which was produced here to-night and which was inserted in the Bibles by Mr. Cleaver at a naturalization ceremony, was nothing more than the giving of advice to a new Australian. If that was its purpose, I do not think we could take much exception to it. But let us listen to the letter that Mr. Cleaver wrote to Mr. Holtmeuler.

Senator Gorton:

Mr. who?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I will show you the letter afterwards.

Senator Gorton:

– Can’t you pronounce his name?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes, Holtmeuler

Senator Gorton:

– Who is he?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– If you ask Mr. Cleaver, he will tell you. I do not know. Mr. Cleaver’s letter to Mr. Holtmeuler reads -

It has been my very real pleasure to meet you personally at this Naturalisation Ceremony. I would ask you to accept this note as an expression of my congratulations to you on entering into full citizenship as an Australian. This is a wonderful country which has much to offer you in future years provided we all fulfil our obligations and are constant in our loyalty.

Should you find at any time you have a problem in which the guidance of a Member of Parliament will assist, I trust you will not hesitate to contact me.

This is how Mr. Cleaver finished the letter -

Please be sure to complete your Electoral Cards and remember that, as your Liberal Member, I am at your service.

If that is not political propaganda, I want to know what is.

Senator Henty:

– Was that letter put in the Bible, too?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes. That is the kind of propaganda that is used by people on the other side of this chamber. I have been to many naturalization ceremonies. I have always pointed out to the mayors of the various municipalities to which I have been invited that, as far as we are concerned, no politics is ever mentioned at naturalization ceremonies. This is a serious matter. This Government probably believes that it can treat people who come here from Spain in the same way as Franco treated them. They are entitled to better treatment here than they received in Spain. No political party should propagate a political cause at naturalization ceremonies.

Senator Buttfield:

– Hear, hear! I wish you would remember that.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I always do.

Senator Buttfield:

– I wish your party would remember it.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I venture to say that I attend more naturalization ceremonies than Senator Buttfield does. There has not been one naturalization ceremony in any municipality in Victoria at which I have mentioned that I am a Labour senator. I always say that I am at the ceremony representing the Commonwealth Parliament and to help the people being naturalized.

Senator Spooner:

– Do you get someone else to tell them that?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– No. I do not adopt Senator Spooner’s tactics. We are not as clever as he is. We do not use the snide tactics that he would use. I say to Senator Henty, through you, Mr. President, that when any honorable senator asks a question and when matters are raised in the adjournment debate at such a late hour, he should try to clarify the position. Most of the questions asked by honorable senators on Senator Henty’s side of the chamber are Dorothy Dix-ers. We on this side of the chamber represent more than half the people of Australia. He should try to explain these matters to the honorable senators who raise them.

In regard to Senator Paltridge’s statement about Mr. Opperman, I give great credit to the Commonwealth Railways. I have nothing against them, and I do not think Senator Cant said anything against them. What he objected to was this: When this gentleman wrote to Mr. Opperman on 20th July, 1962, Mr. Opperman should have had the decency to reply to him, whoever he may be, and tell him what Senator Paltridge has told us to-night, namely that the correct procedure is for him to go through his local federal member or through a senator.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– You would agree with that, would you not?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– You agree with that, but I do not. I believe that no Minister should refuse to reply to any person who writes to him. Senator Cant’ has brought this matter before the Senate this evening. I do not know this gentleman. Senator Paltridge says that he is a political stunter. If he is any better than Senator Paltridge, he must be pretty capable. The letter was written to the Minister on 20th July. The gentleman should have received some acknowledgment of it at least. The same applies to a letter that was written to the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Downer) on 3rd August. I have a copy of it. Surely Ministers should have the decency to make some reply to these queries. No honorable senator on this side of the chamber brings a matter before it unless he has been asked to do so by people he represents in this Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 November 1962, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1962/19621128_senate_24_s22/>.