Senate
26 September 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 843

QUESTION

FLOUR

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has his attention been directed to a statement in this morning’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ in which a Sydney flour miller is alleged to have said that Australia could have sold Russia much more flour but for a serious decline in milling capacity? Can the Minister inform the Senate what basis there is for that statement?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · CP

– During the war the Australian flour-milling industry enjoyed a period of buoyancy which, unfortunately, has declined in recent years. The reasons are fairly obvious. During the war many of the European mills were destroyed, but upon the cessation of hostilities they were re-established and are again producing flour. Also, some countries which have been among our traditional markets for wheat have also established new mills so that they can secure the offal as well as the flour. I think it is fair to say that, in the main, our Hour-milling industry could handle any extra business that might be offering. It could well be that this huge sale of wheat to Russia is what I might term a “oncer”. However, nobody knows. I shall discuss this matter with both the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Trade to see whether there is any substance in the allegations that have been made by the Sydney flour miller.

page 843

QUESTION

TRADE

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. May I recall to the Minister’s recollection a series of questions which I have been asking for nearly two years and which have been based on the United States Trade Expansion Act? President Kennedy described that act as the most important piece of international legislation since the Marshall Plan, and I have always felt that it would seriously affect the Australian economy. Does the Minister recall that I reminded the Senate that President. Kennedy said he would use the authority of the act to negotiate with other great trading partners so that all could enjoy a period of economic growth? Has the Australian Government issued a considered statement which would indicate in unmistakable language that this United States legislation would be beneficial to Australia? Has the Minister for Trade stated that the present inquiry being conducted by the Tariff Board is linked with the tariff negotiations commonly referred to as the Kennedy Round? Have Australian manufacturers indicated in. unmistakable language that any reduction in the duty on goods could cause a major setback to Australia’s developing economy? Has the Secretary of the Department of Trade prophesied that the 1960’s will be a rough, -tough decade for industry? Does the Government agree with these forecasts? If so, could a considered statement on the subject be submitted to the Senate?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I do not think that the United States Trade Expansion Act and the Kennedy Round could, in practical terms, be made the subject of a separate and distinct statement to the Senate. These are matters which arise continually in all trade negotiations.. I should think that hardly a week or a fortnight passes without there being some trade arrangements which have to be considered against the background of this American legislation. The act influences all our thinking on tariff and on the various trade arrangements that we make throughout the world. It would be difficult to reduce a description of the effects of this legislation to a comparatively short statement. Australia has a special team continually engaged in evaluating the problem. That, in itself, is a difficult task because no precise terms have been laid down. This has to be a matter of discussion and negotiation. The legislation is of such consequence that we have this special organization to deal with it. I do not think the Government could make a statement on the implications, nor do I think it would be very wise to do so.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What about the statement by the Secretary of the Department of Trade?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– That is a matter for him. I do not think I could make a statement on this trade expansion, nor do I think it would be wise to make public statements on the subject until we have seen in precise terms what the proposals are.

page 844

QUESTION

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER.At 30th June, 1963, the capital of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation was £1,000,000 advanced by the Commonwealth Government. Of this amount, £500,000 was subscribed at the inception in 1956 and a further £500,000 in 1959. No capital has been repaid to the Commonwealth. The total capital is fully employed in the steadily expanding business of the corporation in covering exporters against overseas trading risks. Claims paid to policy holders from the inception of the scheme in 1956 to 30th June, 1963 have totalled £75,000. In the year ended 30th June, 1963, claims were paid in respect of goods destined for Ceylon, Fiji, Greece, Iran, Malaya, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Borneo, Singapore, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay and Venezuela. The total amount covered by insurance from the establishment of the corporation in 1956 to 30th June, 1963 was £80,000,000.

page 844

QUESTION

LAEVADOSIN

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Health seen a statement by Mr. Peter Landers, president of the South Australian Muscular Dystrophy Association indicating that this organization is to seek a report from London on a new drug laevadosin which appears to control muscular dystrophy’s relentless muscle-wasting progress?

Has the Department of Health checked the effectiveness and reliability of this drug? If so, could it supply a report to the association I have mentioned?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I have not seen the report of that statement. I presume it was of recent date.

Senator Drury:

– It was published on 24th September.

Senator WADE:

– That being so, I think it would be improbable that the Department of Health has any concrete information on the efficacy of the drug. However, I will ask the department to seek information and if there is anything of real value in its report I will make it available to the South Australian Muscular Dystrophy Association.

page 844

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it a fact that the ship to be named “ Empress of Australia “ now being constructed in Sydney for the Australian National Line to carry passengers and cars between Sydney and Tasmania will be launched on 18th January and will commence service on the run as scheduled?

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

– I am quite sure that the ship is to be launched on 18th January because firm arrangements have been made. I have no reason to doubt that the vessel will meet the other commitment as to the date of commission.

page 844

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. I hold in my hand a brochure entitled “New Bridges for the Gaps in our Knowledge” issued by the Australian Association of Ethical Pharmaceutical Industry. First, will the Minister tell me from the depths of his knowledge why the word “ ethical “ is used in such a context. On the back page of the brochure is a list of 60 proprietary drug companies. Are these all Australian companies? If not, how many of them are American companies? Are they associated in any way in order to maintain high prices for drugs? Apart from the 350 university graduates employed to ensure purity of ingredients and potency of manufactured substances, how. many scientists areemployed in Australia doing real research work ondrugs?

How much money has been spent in this direction? According to the brochure, £140,000,000 was spent in 1962, but it is not clear whether any of this money was spent in Australia or whether it was spent entirely in America and Europe.

Senator WADE:
CP

– I have not seen the brochure referred to; therefore, I am certainly not competent to say whether the companies listed are of American, Australian or any other origin. If the honorable senator will put the question on the notice-paper, I shall certainly endeavour to get the information for him. The last two questions he has posed are not so easily answered. He has ‘asked whether I can ascertain for him the number of scientists employed in this field in this country. That is a very difficult assignment.

Senator Brown:

– By this organization.

Senator WADE:

– Within that organization?

Senator Brown:

– Yes.

Senator WADE:

– That may limit the inquiry to some extent. I shall see whether the information can be obtained for him. We have no means at all at our disposal of ascertaining the amount that has been spent in this direction.

page 845

QUESTION

GOLD

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister for National Development a question that is supplementary to the one I asked yesterday in relation to the find of a rich gold lode at Tennant Creek. Is it a fact, as reported in this morning’s press, that the lode is at least twenty feet wide and that it reveals values of up to 50 dwt. a ton? Is it a fact that a claim has already been pegged by a member of the civil service? Is it a fact that the Government, prior to the claim being pegged, threw a blanket reservation over the area? If the latter is a fact, what action does the Government intend to take to throw the area open so that it can be exploited?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– As

I said previously, the assay revealed very high gold values. It is a find of some consequence. As to the rest of the question, I am advised that the matter is sub judice- as’ it is’- Before the warden’s court Therefore, I should not discuss it:’

page 845

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Has the Government recently considered expanding the operations of the Australian National Line in view of its profitable and efficient trading activities? Does the Minister agree that any such extension of the line’s operations in competition with privately-owned vessels would assist in maintaining reasonable freight rates and in developing Australia’s economic and defence capacities?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– It is true that the Australian National Line has this year again shown an operating surplus. The honorable senator will be interested to know that I shall table the report of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission later to-day. The suggestion that the activities of the line be extended is, of course, a matter of policy, which can be answered only by the Minister for Shipping and Transport, to whom I shall refer the question.

page 845

QUESTION

FROZEN PEAS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise any information regarding the alleged damaging effect on the local industry of importations of quick frozen peas? If these importations are in quantity, is there a move to have the Tariff Board review the position?

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

– Some months ago there were considerable imports of quick frozen peas, mostly from New Zealand but also from other countries. Naturally enough, coming as they did with the very successful season we had in Tasmania last year, they had some effect on the market. These imports have dwindled away in the last few months and are not so heavy at the present time. There is a tariff at present on a sliding scale on the importation of frozen peas, and the industry is keeping” a very close watch on imports. Every month, I send to the industry statistics of the imports into Australia of this, particular commodity and, together, we keep a very close eye upon the situation. I am sure that the industry; is aware that if it feels it is being damaged by imports it can apply for an Increased emergency tariff, to a special authority and that, eventually J the matter would come before the Tariff Board,

If the matter is not as pressing as that, the industry would still be able to present a case to the board.

page 846

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION IN AUSTRALIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to proclaim as a security area the area at North West Cape in which the United States of America intends to build a naval communication station. What interference will such a proclamation have on the right of trade union officials to visit the area and inspect working conditions of the members of various unions who will be employed there? If the area has not up to this date been proclaimed a security area, on whose authority did American personnel remove a representative of the Australian Workers Union from the area some weeks ago?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I shall have to ask for that question to be put on the notice-paper. I know that the matter has been under consideration by the Minister for Defence, and that certain decisions have been taken. I do not accept the view that a union official was removed from the area. I understand that to be quite an inaccurate statement of the position. But I think, in view of the importance of the matter, it would be better to have a reply provided by the Minister for Defence.

page 846

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs hear a news item broadcast this morning to the effect that a Dr. David Wilson, a former official of the United Nations stationed in Djakarta, predicted that in the near future there- would be conflict between Indonesia and Australia over the control of New Guinea and that Dr. Soekarno would have to take some such action to keep in hand 1,000,000 hungry Indonesians? What have been the relations between Australia and Indonesia in regard to New Guinea since Indonesia took over the control, of West Irian in May last? Has the Australian Government any reason to believe that Dr. Wilson’s prediction is likely to be correct?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– I know of no reason to believe the statement by a relatively unknown spokesman who happens to have held a United Nations post in Djakarta. The relations between the Australian Government and the Indonesian Government in respect of the island of New Guinea have not been exacerbated in any way that I know of, nor have there been indications that they are likely to be exacerbated in that area, lt does not seem sensible to me - the honorable senator must make up his own mind about this- to claim that an attack by Indonesia in West New Guinea would assist hungry Indonesians in other parts of Indonesia.

page 846

QUESTION

SMALLPOX

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been directed to a report that a team of British scientists has discovered a drug called BW33T57, which is effective against the smallpox virus? Has any approach been made by the Commonwealth Department of Health to the Wellcome Foundation for further information about this new drug which, if mass produced, is estimated to cost about the same as vaccination?

Senator WADE:
CP

– My attention has been directed to the report about the drug BW33T57 which is believed to be effective in protecting people against infection from the smallpox virus. Of course, we regard this as being a very significant development. However, 1 am informed that the drug is still in the experimental stages, and the reports are only progress reports of trials that have been conducted by the Wellcome Foundation. For this reason, no approach has yet been made to the foundation; but as soon as the trials are nearing completion we will endeavour to get from the company the latest factual information about its final analysis of the efficacy of the drug.

page 846

QUESTION

FLOUR

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry questions about the increased export of flour, which has already been mentioned by Senator DrakeBrockman. Can the Minister explain how this increase in exports will be allotted to the flour-exporting- States? .Can he state what organization, if any, will decide’ the 1 allotment? Is it likely that the price will be attractive to Australian millers? Can flour-millers in South Australia expect to participate in the benefit of this increased output from our mills?

Senator WADE:
CP

– As I understood Senator Drake-Brockman’s question, he asked whether additional sales of flour to Russia could have been made if we had had the necessary milling facilities. I understand that the great bulk of the exports in question consisted of wheat and not of flour. In regard to the allocation of overseas orders, I understand that the flour-millers’ association has a system under which it allots unexpected orders or portions of such orders to various mills and that that placement would extend to the various States, having regard of course to location, freight charges and so on.

The Australian flour-milling industry is suffering greatly at the hands of overseas countries which, in the main, are subsidizing their flour exports to make them more than competitive with the prices that we normally would be able to offer. Some of these countries are hungry for foreign exchange and they are subsidizing their flour to obtain exchange. I am afraid that we as an exporting country could not contemplate meeting competition which stems from that motive. If we were to compete in that field, I believe that the result ultimately would prove to be disastrous to our flourmilling industry.

page 847

QUESTION

TEA

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing .the Minister for Trade. In view of repeated statements to the effect that Australia imports only first-grade tea, can the Minister say whether complaints have been received by the Department of Trade, as they have by me, concerning the * poor quality of the tea being sold in Australia and the large quantity of dust that it contains? Will the Minister for Trade have these complaints investigated with a view to ensuring that only tea of the best quality shall be imported or sold? I point out that the Australian people are paying top prices in the belief that they are buying best-quality tea.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– 1 speak subject to correction, but I do not think that nowadays there is any govern mental control over the importation of tea. I believe that the tea board which previously existed was disbanded some years ago. Therefore, I do not think there is any ground for a government inquiry. The simple position is that, since there is a variety of brands of tea and also a variety of kinds of tea, such as Indian and Ceylon tea, if customers do not like a particular brand or kind they may make their choice in order to obtain tea of the kind and quality they want.

page 847

QUESTION

TRADE WITH MALAYSIA

Senator SCOTT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is it a fact that Malaysia is an increasing export market for Australian goods? During the last ten years have exports from Australia to the countries of Malaysia increased by approximately 41 per cent., compared with an increase of 22 per cent, in total exports from this country? Can the Minister inform me whether trade posts have been established in the area and, if so, what proportion of the increase of our exports to those countries is attributable to the establishment of such posts? To what extent have manufacturing industries contributed to this vital increase in exports to Malaysia?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I am sorry to say that I cannot, off the cuff, state the position of our trade with Malaysia. I know that in general terms our export trade to the countries of Malaysia, as with practically every other country in South-East Asia, has increased as a result of the planned programme, extension of the Trade Commissioner Service and, more importantly, the encouragement that has been given to exporters and manufacturers by the various taxation concessions which the Government has granted. If Senator Scott places the question on the notice-paper I shall obtain figures relating to the trend of trade with Malaysia, because I am certain that all honorable senators will be interested in them.

page 847

QUESTION

CRIMES ON AIRCRAFT

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Can he say whether a diplomatic conference will be held in Tokyo this month for the purpose of drafting a convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft? Is Australia to be represented at the conference? Is the subject-matter of the convention likely to affect the Crimes (Aircraft) Bill which is now before the Parliament?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Such a conference is to take place. I should think that without doubt it would embrace some of the matters which are encompassed by our proposed legislation. I do not expect that discussions at this conference will, in fact, affect the content of the legislation.

page 848

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. Has the Minister yet made an estimate of the unused bed accommodation in Australian repatriation hospitals and an assessment of the bed demand that would be made as a result of the acceptance as patients of the general rate pensioners who have not yet qualified for hospital treatment under the pensioner medical benefits scheme? It will be remembered that this question was asked before the close of the debate on the Repatriation Bill. I understood that the information would be made available.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am well aware that this information was requested during the debate. The officers of the department left Canberra last Thursday and it was intended that the information would be obtained and supplied to Senator Wright. I shall find out what progress has been made and see that the information is supplied to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 848

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– By way of preface to a question to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization I advise him that at present a fleet of Japanese fishing craft is operating outside territorial waters to the south of Tasmania. Periodically these fishermen come into the port of Hobart for provisions and other needs. I understand that they are operating in rather productive fishing grounds and are fishing for tuna. Is the C.S.I.R.O. working in cooperation with the Japanese fishermen to gain information about, these grounds? ‘.Is’- any research being done- in ‘Tasmanian’’ waters in regard to tuna grounds similar to the work that is being carried out by the organization in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia? Would the Minister investigate the possibility of a research station being set up in Tasmanian waters with a view to exploring tuna grounds that may exist in proximity to the island State?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I understand that the C.S.I.R.O. is carrying out investigations into tuna fishing, the migratory habits of tuna, and where the fish happen to be at a particular time of the year in particular sea conditions. The organization is endeavouring in that way to enable fishermen to catch tuna with some certitude. However, I think that the question the honorable senator has asked is of such interest that it should be put on the notice-paper so that exact information can be given of the research being carried out in all the various places and put in a documented form for the benefit of the honorable senator and others who are interested in this subject. I do not know whether there is any liaison between the C.S.I.R.O. and the Japanese tuna fishermen who are operating south of Tasmania, but I shall find out and let the honorable senator know.

page 848

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES THROUGH INDONESIA

Senator CORMACK:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Today’s press carries under yesterday’s dateline an Associated Press-Reuter report from Washington that the Indonesian Government proposes to abrogate the landing rights of international aircraft with a stop-over in Malaysia. As this is a matter that concerns Australian citizens, I ask: Is it to be understood that international flights by foreign and domestic carriers operating out of and to Australia are to be prohibited from landing in Indonesia on through flights?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– No, it does not mean that there is any prohibition on landing rights. Late last Tuesday I received a message from our ambassador in Djakarta that the Indonesion Government had withdrawn the right of any airline to fly passengers into or out of Djakarta from dr to Malaysia. In practice that would mean to or from Singapore and Kuala

Lumpur. The information was also conveyed to Qantas by the Indonesian Minister for Civil Aviation, Mr. Iskander. Qantas operates only westward from Djakarta to Singapore and can still land at Djakarta, but cannot pick up in Djakarta passengers for Singapore, or for that matter, Kuala Lumpur. Similarly, the British Overseas Aircraft Corporation, which operates eastward out of Singapore to Djakarta, is not allowed to land in Djakarta passengers from either of these two Malaysian airports. It should be understood that the restrictions arc on passenger traffic between the two countries, and not on airline operations. The landing rights remain so long as the restrictions as to the passengers carried are not infringed.

page 849

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Health seen in to-day’s press a news item under the caption heading “ £21 Ulcer Cure’ costs £1 12s. 5d.”? Does the Government have any authority under existing legislation to stop this racketeering? If not, will the Government consider introducing such legislation as a matter of urgency?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I have not seen the report referred to by the honorable senator, but I am very anxious to see it and will ask my departmental officers to examine it. More than a matter of price is involved; there is also the matter of the efficacy of the drug. One docs not mind paying a high price for adequate remedies, but it might well be that other factors are involved here. The Commonwealth Government has no legislative power in this field; the States have that power. At present wc are not contemplating the implementation of such laws, but we have means at our disposal to examine such matters. I shall be very interested to see what my officers can tell me about this report.

page 849

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES THROUGH INDONESIA

Senator CORMACK:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs and is supplementary to that which I asked the Minister for Civil Aviation a few minutes ago. It relates to a problem that arises from the answer given by that Minister, namely, that the ban to which I referred does not affect landing rights, but, in effect, only the rights of citizens. I ask the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs: Is not this a gross infringement of the rights of Australian citizens, if they so desire, to move freely out of Indonesia to anywhere they wish in an Australiancontrolled aircraft with the object of protecting their property and their wives and children because of the situation that currently exists in Indonesia?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I am not conversant with the various air agreements which have been entered into between the countries concerned, nor with the relevant international law - if there is an international law which can be enforced in these particular circumstances. I should like to have the question placed on notice so that the actual legal implications can be dealt with in a considered answer and so that it can be determined whether an infringement of the rights of citizens has occurred.

page 849

QUESTION

MOONIE OIL PIPELINE

Senator WHITESIDE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question to the Minister for National Development relates to the Moonie oil pipeline which is now almost completed. Has the Minister been advised of the daily amount of oil which will come through this pipeline once it is in use?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– I understand that the original programme was for a flow of the order of 7,000 to 10,000 barrels a day, but the pipeline is so constructed that if further commercial deposits of oil are discovered the pipeline will be able to convey more than the amount of oil originally estimated. The company expects to go into operation at the end of this year or early next year on the capacity figure that I have mentioned.

Senator Whiteside:

– What is the capacity of a barrel?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER.About 30 or 35 gallons.

page 849

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION

(Question No. 73.)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. Is it a fact, as recently announced, that a campaign is to be commenced to induce the 244,972 migrants’ eligible for naturalization to1 make application to .-be naturalized?. .v .v
  2. Will the Minister indicate the precise form of the campaign?
  3. Is it intended to investigate the reasons offered by migrants for not applying to become naturalized?
  4. Bearing in mind the importance of economic security, will the Minister consider listing and recording information from the campaign relating to employment and housing aspects as they affect these migrants?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has furnished the following replies: -

  1. The Minister for Immigration recently announced a campaign to make non-British migrants more aware of their opportunities for becoming Australian citizens. The main purpose of the campaign is to ensure that the requirements for naturalization and the means of achieving citizenship are made known to new settlers. There is no suggestion of compulsion of migrants to accept Australian citizenship.
  2. The campaign involves the distribution throughout Australia of a new series of colourful pamphlets and posters. One publication is directed to new settlers themselves, and another to Australians who may wish to explain the advantages and conditions of naturalization to their migrant friends. A form of application and a reply-paid envelope are being distributed with these pamphlets, which are also included with the personal letter which the Minister for Immigration sends to migrants as they become eligible to apply for citizenship.

In addition to this literature, a series of four different posters is being distributed throughout Australia.

  1. Yes. Field officers of the Department of Immigration are at present engaged in conducting a separate survey in New South Wales to obtain information as to the reasons eligible migrants do not seek naturalization.
  2. Although the campaign to interest migrants in Australian citizenship is expected to result in an increase in applications, it will not disclose the reasons for migrants not applying. However, the survey now being conducted in New South Wales is expected to produce information of this nature which will be analysed most carefully.

page 850

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 90.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Have any applications seeking the Treasurer’s guarantee for loans in accordance with the Northern Territory (Lessees’ Loans Guarantee) Act 1954-1959 been received; if so, bow many?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The answer is as follows: -

One application, which was not approved, was made in 1957.

page 850

QUESTION

FRUIT CANNING

(Question No. 105.)

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. What steps have been taken to implement the deciduous tree fruits export development plan which has been presented to the Minister for Primary Industry with the support of the fruit growers and most of the canning industry?
  2. Is it a fact that the industry in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area is pressing strongly for the implementation of the plan?
  3. Will the Government deal with this urgently in order to avert what, according to the interim report of the Canned Fruits Board, appears to be an inevitable sizeable carry-over of unsold stocks at the end of this year, as well as serious disposal problems for increasing exportable surpluses in the future?

Senator WADE__ The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply: -

  1. The plan was received by the Minister only in the past fortnight.
  2. Representations in support of the plan have been received from the leading cannery in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area.
  3. The plan is receiving the urgent consideration of the Minister.

page 850

QUESTION

PRICE OF DRUGS

(Question No. 115.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that under the Pharmaceutical Services Fund the undermentioned drugs and list prices are shown: -

Item 134 - Carbimazole (oral tablet, 5 mgm.) Suppliers: Protea Pharmaceuticals, listed at 19s. 8d. per 100; British Schering Limited, listed at 32s. 4d. per 100;

Item 145 - Chloramphenicol (oral capsule) 125 mgm.;

Suppliers: Knoll Laboratories, listed at 12s. 4d. per 16; Parke Davis, listed at 18s. 4d. per 16. 250 mgm;

Suppliers: Cophar, Knoll and Protea, 16s. 7d. per 16; Andrews Laboratories, Parke Davis, 27s.11d. per 16?

  1. If so, are there other great price differentials in the pharmaceutical services listings?
  2. Does this seem to indicate either exorbitant charging by or inefficiency of some drug companies for which the Australian taxpayers are paying?
  3. Has the Government given consideration to directing prescriptions being written according to the generic name and not trade name of the drug?
  4. When will the Minister be in a position to inform the Senate of the type of action being contemplated by the Government against the drug companies?
Senator WADE:
CP

– The following answer is now supplied: -

  1. Yes.
  2. There are other price differentials of which my department is well aware. Suitable action is being taken to effect reasonable parity.
  3. There are a number of instances of prices which appear to be higher than can be reasonably explained. The Government’s views on drug prices have already been made clear, namely that we are well aware of the situation and that something will have to be done about it.
  4. My department has always followed the policy of encouraging prescribing by generic name.
  5. 1 am not at present in a position to give details of the action contemplated, but I will inform the Senate at the appropriate lime of the nature of the action being taken.

page 851

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

(Question No. 107.)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister re- presenting the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Did the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board in its recent annual report state that present condit ions in the Australian dried fruits industry arc the worst the industry has experienced since the establishment of that board in 1925 and that there has been a general reduction of confidence in the industry to an extent that was scarcely thought possible a few years ago?
  2. Has the Australian Dried Fruits Association put forward a plan for stabilization of the industry?
  3. What is the Government’s attitude to that plan?
  4. What steps is the Government taking to give to the industry the stability and security it urgently needs?
Senator WADE:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following reply:-

  1. The annual report of the board for the 12 months ended 31st May, 1963 offered the view that the general condition of the dried vine fruits industry appeared at that point to be less satisfactory than in any year since the board was established in 1925 and that due to a combination of factors there had been a general reduction of confidence in the present position of the industry to an extent which was scarcely thought possible a few years ago. Since the report was written, however, there has been quite a radical change in the overseas marketing situation in that all old season’s stocks of Australian fruit have been quitted and the new season’s pack is selling well at substantially increased prices.
  2. Yes. 3 and 4. The plan is being examined as a matter of urgency.

page 851

QUESTION

VISITING RUSSIAN VIOLINIST

Senator WADE:
CP

– On 12th September, Senator Cole asked me the following question: -

Is it a fact that the Russian Violinist, Igor Oistrakh, and his wife visited Canberra for a recital under contract to the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Is it a fact that the Soviet artists refused to play the Australian national anthem? Did the A.B.C. have to engage a local pianist to perform this function? If so, will the Government request the A.B.C. to consider the possibility of not engaging people who blatantly mix their musical artistry with politics?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply: -

The chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission advises that Mr. Oistrakh did not refuse to play the national anthem. I understand that when a violinist, whether from Russia or any other country, gives a recital it is not customary to ask the soloist to perform the national anthem at the beginning of the concert, as the piano is considered to be a more suitable instrument for this purpose than the violin.

The commission desires to assure the honorable senator that the arrangements at the Canberra concert did not represent an expression of political views on Mr Oistrakh’s part and that it would be unfair to suggest any criticism of him in this regard.

page 851

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

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

– I lay on the table of the Senate reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - Drums.

Sparking plugs and insulating parts therefor.

page 851

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Sir William Spooner) proposed -

That Government business take precedence of general business after 8 p.m. this sitting.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I have on the notice-paper a motion relating to the situation of the new Parliament House. I should like the Minister who has proposed the motion to give me an indication of when my motion can be debated.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister . for National Development · New South Wales · LP

[11.54]. - in reply - AllI can say in reply to the honorable senator is that I certainly cannot provide an opportunity to debate the motion this week. When we resume I shall look at the situation in the light of the circumstances that then exist.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 852

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1963

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time. This bill provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to £4,225,000 for war service land settlement in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania during the financial year 1963-64. Honorable senators will recall that the Commonwealth is responsible for the provision of the whole of the capital moneys required for the scheme in those three States. It is expected that the £4,225,000 will be made available to the States in the following amounts: - State. Amount.

The necessity for raising this money this year arises from a change that has been made in accounting procedures. Formerly, and as was explained to the Parliament when similar bills were presented in the past, the amounts authorized to be raised by way of loans were supplemented by capital moneys received through principal repayments of advances made to settlers, State and Commonwealth contributions to the excess of cost over valuations of holdings and sales of surplus land. These receipts have been increasing over the years and it is expected that, this year, they will exceed expenditure.

However, under the change of procedure mentioned, all such payments after 1st July, 1963, will be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Honorable senators will appreciate that ‘ this ‘change1 is procedural only and the nett cost to the Commonwealth of the scheme will not be affected but the change does mean that, as from the current financial year, the Commonwealth will need to appropriate the gross amount of money required for grants under the States Grant3 (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952-53. As already mentioned the amount for this financial year is £4,225,000.

Capital expenditure on war service land settlement in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania to 30th June, 1963, totalled £94,782,000, of which £57,022,000 was spent on acquiring and developing land to provide 2,863 farms; £1,905,000 on providing irrigation headworks and a comprehensive drainage scheme at Loxton, in South Australia, and £35,855,000 on advances to settlers to purchase structural improvements, stock and plant and to provide working expenses.

Of the farms provided, 1,260 are in Western Australia, 1,024 are in South Australia and 579 are in Tasmania. With the exception of 56 currently undergoing development in Tasmania, all farms have been allotted to classified ex-servicemen. Demand from classified ex-servicemen was satisfied in Western Australia and Tasmania, but unfortunately it was not possible to acquire sufficient suitable land in South Australia to achieve a similar result. Waiting South Australians were given the chance to apply for farms in other States, but the response suggests they are generally not interested in leaving their home State to obtain a farm.

War service land settlement, in providing more than 1,500 farms from about 1,000,000 acres of land which formerly produced little or nothing, has contributed substantially to our national wealth and, at the same time, enabled the Government, within the principles of the scheme, to fulfil its promises to those ex-servicemen who sought settlement on the land. There will be a fairly heavy loss incurred in writing the cost of these farms down to a level in accord with the liberal conditions which the respective governments agreed, as a matter of policy, should apply to the exservicemen. The total write-down cannot be defined precisely at the present stage, but it is confidently expected it will not be unreasonable having regard to the reestablishment objective of the scheme and the gross additional annual amount the farms will contribute to the national income over the years.

Of the advances totalling £35,855,000 made to settlers, £19,949,000 has been repaid and £219,000, or 0.61 per cent, of the total advanced, has been written off. This is considered to be very satisfactory in view of the conditions which did not require the investment of any private capital in the farms and the less favorable cost-price relationship which has prevailed for primary produce over more recent years.

Some settlers under these conditions are experiencing difficulties in meeting their commitments, but, generally speaking, these are considered to be short-term problems and “ ad hoc “ measures are introduced as required to assist settlers to overcome factors, outside their control, which are militating against successful settlement. I am confident as to the long-term future of the farms provided for war service land settlement. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Hendrickson) adjourned.

page 853

QUESTION

MALAYSIA DEFENCE

Debate resumed from 25tb September (vide page 797), on the following papers presented by Senator Sir William Spooner-

Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement, 1957; Notes exchanged between Australia and Malaya,

March and April, 1959; United Kingdom-Malaysia Agreement (excluding annexes), 1963; and Notes exchanged between Australia and Malaysia,

September, 1963.

And on the motion by Senator McKenna -

That the papers be printed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Last night the Senate heard repeated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir William Spooner) a speech on the subject of Malaysia and its formation, and the incidents connected therewith, made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) in the House of Representatives. The right honorable gentleman was followed in the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Opposition .in that House (Mr., Calwell). 1 would say that the speech made by the

Leader of the Opposition will add to his reputation as a great and far-seeing Australian. I could, with advantage, content myself by merely repeating that speech in this place, as Senator Sir William Spooner did the speech of the Prime Minister, but I do not propose to do that because I have had an opportunity to study in a little more detail than the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives did the exact nature of the agreements that the Government has put before us.

I want to say at the outset, having regard to the difficulties created by Indonesia in this matter, that Indonesia has much for which it should be thankful to Australia. It was Australia and Australian initiative in seeking the co-operation of the United States of America that resulted in the reference to the United Nations of the dispute between Indonesia and the Dutch when Indonesia was struggling for its independence. The result was that Indonesia won its way through to independence. I suppose that without that initiative, interest and sympathy on Australia’s part, Indonesia might have suffered a holocaust in its own country. It may be that the Dutch would have prevailed militarily and Indonesia might not to-day be free. So, I repeat, that country has very much for which to be thankful to Australia.

We of the Opposition welcome the advent of the new Commonwealth country, Malaysia, and we welcome the end of colonialism in the areas that comprise that new state. It is very distressing, then, to find Indonesia, while enjoying its own freedom, objecting to the formation of Malaysia. It is distressing to find Indonesian emotionalism over the emergence of the new state erupting in the sacking of the British Embassy in Djakarta, through the inability or unwillingness of the Indonesian Government to protect it - I pass no judgment on which it was. But I note that newspaper reports indicate a high degree of carefully controlled violence that was directed to British buildings but avoided danger to British personnel in Djakarta.

That unfortunate incident has caused very -great uneasiness among nations in the vicinity of Indonesia, but violation of British ..diplomatic immunity has- disturbed the whole international community by striking at the only basis upon which diplomatic missions can function securely and effectively. The United Nations itself has been concerned with the development of the new nation. One of the undersecretaries of the United Nations, Mr. Narasimham, was sent to Borneo in April by the Secretary-General. He made a survey of public opinion in that place and reported in due course that the people were very strongly in favour of the formation of Malaysia. He was on a fact-finding mission for the Secretary-General. So the United Nations itself took, a friendly interest in the formation of the new state, before the prospective components of Malaysia agreed that the United Nations should take another look at it while the formation of Malaysia was postponed.

Again, we had a mission quite recently from the United Nations to North Borneo and Sarawak. It reported - I think on 15th September - that the great majority of the people in both of those states were strongly in favour of the formation. Now that the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia - the new state already formed - has reached rather grave proportions, in the view that the Opposition puts the United Nations, already interested, again has a duty, if there is a threat to the peace - and there may well be such a threat at this moment - to take some official cognizance of what goes on in this area in relation to Malaysia. I should expect Indonesia to be the last member of the United Nations to object to some such course, having regard to its own experience.

Now 1 should like to come to the speech that was delivered in the Senate last evening, repeating the Prime Minister’s speech. I say at once that I am shocked at the presentation of this matter to the Parliament. I am shocked at some of the statements made by the Prime Minister, and I am shocked also at the inadequacy and brevity of a speech that commits Australia in a matter so vital to the security and future integrity of this country, and which may commit the lives of Australian soldiers.

In the first place, I do not think it is proper that this matter should be disposed of on a mere motion that certain papers be printed. There is no opportunity to can vass ‘ the matter thoroughly and to thrash out details of agreement that have been put before us. I shall dea with those propositions before I conclude. At this stage, I just want to refer to the sequence of events in connexion with our association with Malaysia.

First, there is a vastly important document that has never been tabled at all in connexion with these papers. It is a document of the utmost relevance. I refer to the text of a United Kingdom White Paper that was tabled in the House of Commons on 18 th September, 1957, in the Australian House of Representatives on the following day, and in the Senate on 2nd October, 1957, without comment. This White Paper, signed by nobody, unilaterally expressing certain arrangements under the heading, “ Arrangements for the Employment of Overseas Commonwealth Forces in Emergency Operations in the Federation of Malaya “, sets out that after independence new arrangements were required. I should like somebody on the Government side to tell me why, in presenting documents relating to the presence of our forces in Malaya, the Government did not draw particular attention to this document. Was it forgotten?

Senator Wright:

– It was referred to fully in the printed pamphlet wc received from the High Commissioner in the past few weeks.

Senator McKENNA:

– 1 am talking about the action of the Government in puttnig matters that are relevant to the issue that we are discussing. I consider it completely wrong that a fundamental document, which goes to the root of the whole matter, should not be adverted to with particularity1 and filed as were far less relevant papers in this chamber. This agreement deals with the part that Australia plays in the overseas Commonwealth forces in emergency operations in the Federation of Malaya. It confines Australia’s activity, in the most express term, to taking part in the campaign against Communist terrorists, and nothing else. The first paragraph reads- -

At the Malayan Constitutional Conference held in London in January and February 1056, Her Majesty’s .Government in the United Kingdom’, undertook,’ if requested by the Government of the

Federation of Malaya, to continue after independence to make their forces in Malaya available to take part in the campaign against the Communist terrorists.

The second paragraph reads -

The Government of the Federation of Malaya is determined that there shall be no relaxation in the conduct of the Emergency Campaign and it has now requested Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and also Her Majesty’s Governments in Australia and New Zealand to continue to make their forces available for use in Emergency operations.

Then the agreement proceeds to recount that there have been discussions at which understandings were reached, which are set out with great particularity and to which our attention should have been directed. Paragraph 10, the concluding paragraph of this White Paper issued by the United Kingdom Government, states -

The purpose of these arrangements is, on the one hand, to give effective recognition to the fact that the conduct of Emergency operations is now the exclusive responsibility of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, and, on the other hand, to safeguard the position and interests of Her Majesty’s Governments in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in respect of the assistance which they give to the Government of the Federation of Malaya in its prosecution of the campaign against the Communist terrorists.

There is a document that purports to record a matter of the greatest consequence to this country as well as to New Zealand and Malaya, as it then was. Australia has no authority to-day in the way of a signature. The position is unilaterally expressed to be understandings as recorded in the British Parliament and certainly tabled in our own. In the first place, I would say that it is not a form in which we should commit our troops to activity outside this country. Secondly, I make the point that it is completely clear that the part that was to be played by our troops in Malaya following independence was simply in the suppression of terrorist activity within the confines of Malaya. It was that and nothing else.

The ultimate agreement with the United Kingdom, which is the next document to which I refer and which has been tabled only in part by the Government, deals with an arrangement between the United Kingdom and Malaya for the resistance of aggression of two kinds. There is a mere incidental reference in that document to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. Australia is not a party to the agreement. Aus tralia’s name is not mentioned in it. I invite the Senate to have regard to this significant fact that this document, concluded at least some time before it was presented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 18th September, 1957, preceded the next agreement that we have now before us between the United Kingdom and Malaya of 12th October, 1957. So that when this document that the Government has placed before us was being signed on 12th October Australia’s position in the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve had been completely determined by the arrangement set out in the British White Paper. I say that there was no commitment on Australia’s part to do more than comply with those conditions in relation to the internal security of Malaya. I shall come back to that point in a moment, and I shall make some incidental references to these documents as I review them. The document of 12th October contains the statement -

The Government of the United Kingdom undertakes to afford to the Government of the Federation of Malaya such assistance as the Government of the Federation of Malaya may require for the external defence of its territory.

We are not involved in that. That is a matter between two other governments. In Article II. there is a provision that the United Kingdom Government will furnish the Federation of Malaya with assistance of the kind referred to in Annex 1. I indicate to the Senate that the Government has not been good enough to attach Annex I. to the document it has tabled. I think it is a grievous fault int he presentation of this matter to the Senate that one must go searching to find out the type of assistance to be given. I direct particular attention to Article III., which provides -

The Government of the Federation of Malaya will afford to the Government of the United Kingdom the right to maintain in the Federation such naval, land and air forces including a Commonwealth Strategic Reserve as are agreed between the two governments to be necessary-

In three ways - for the purposes of Article I. of this agreement-

That is the one I have read to the Senate which concerns purely the United Kingdom and Malaya. Article III. continues - and for the fulfilment of Commonwealth and international obligations.

In my reading of that I conclude, having regard to the anterior document to whichI have referred relating to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve, that Australia is in no way involved or committed under this agreement to activity for the external defence of Malaysia. It seems to me that the reference to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve concerns the fulfilment of Commonwealth obligations alone. Those Commonwealth obligations are the arrangements detailed in the document which, deliberately or otherwise, was not brought to our attention in connexion with this matter. Article IV. authorizes the United Kingdom to maintain and use bases and facilities in the federation in accordance with the provisions of Annexes 2 and 4. Again, we have not the advantage of the Government’s putting these important annexes before us. Annex 3 deals with the important question of the status of forces which is referred to in Article V. Again, the Government does not favour us - if those particular conditions are applicable - with the annex which will enable us to assess whether our troops, if involved, are adequately looked at.

Articles VI. and VII. are very interesting, Article VI. deals with the threat of armed attack not only against Malaya but also against any of the territories or protectorates of the United Kingdom in the Far East, or any of the forces of the United Kingdom within those territories or protectorates or within the Federation of Malaya. Article VII. deals with a threat of armed attack on British possessions right outside Malaya and is in identical terms with Article VI. except that, in this case, the article deals with an actual armed attack and not a threat of armed attack. In the event of a threat of armed attack the two governments are to consult together with a view to meeting the situation effectively. In the event of an actual armed attack they undertake to co-operate with each other and to take such action as each considers necessary to meet the situation effectively.

I direct the Senate’s attention to the high degree of mutuality between the United Kingdom Government and Malaya in these important matters. There is an assurance that if bases are taken from the United Kingdom forces Malaya, at its expense, will provide alternative accommodation and facilities.- There’ is provision concerning the grant of bases. There is a mutual undertaking to come to each other’s defence. The United Kingdom thought it worth while to bind even Malaya with its 7,000,000-odd people, when it was going to help Malaya, to come to the aid of the United Kingdom if it were under threat outside Malaya or if it were actually attacked outside Malaya. I emphasize that point because, before I conclude, I shall have some comment to make on the absence of mutuality in any arrangement that we have with the new Malaysia.

Then I pass to the document constituted by a letter of 24th March, 1959, from the Australian High Commissioner to the Prime Minister of Malaya. The effective portion of it states -

  1. . the various provisions applicable to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve, in particular the provisions dealing with the status ot forces* apply in respect of those Australian forces.

That, of course, is Annex 3 which is referred to in Article V. of the agreement to which I have just referred, and it is now before us by courtesy of the Government. That document does not bind us to the regional agreement. A doubt has arisen in one relatively minor but nevertheless important matter: Do the provisions relating to the status of our forces as part of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve apply to our nationals and our soldiers? All that this exchange of letters does is acknowledge the doubt and clear it. That, in itself, is a clear indication that there was a doubt - a doubt about whether even one of the annexes applied to Australia; and that doubt has been cleared up. It did not carry our commitment to Malaya, and I claim that we had no commitment other than the understandings about the reserve to which I have referred.

The next document is one that was executed quite recently. I do not see any date on the copy that has been circulated. It provides, in Article VI., that the original agreement between the United Kingdom and Malaysia - the new body - should operate in exactly the same way in favour of Malaysia. But in that provision the United Kingdom took the precaution to establish in the most particular way its rights to bases in Singapore. So again the United Kingdom, in making an arrangement wtih Malaysia, has been very careful to protect her own interests. Then we have the letter from our own High Commissioner which is dated 18th September and which refers to the earlier agreements. The effective part of it reads -

The Government of Australia accordingly regards its association with the Agreement as henceforth applying to Malaysia.

The only part of that agreement which really applied was the part that related to the Commonwealth strategic force arrangements and the application to them of the status of forces annexure.

That outlines the position under the agreements. I have laid a base for some further comments that I shall make. I come back to my stricture about the presentation of these documents. I sum it up by saying that it was quite wrong for the Government to put these documents before us in this clumsy, incomplete way and to expect us to debate them at short notice. Secondly, the failure to file the original White Paper for the information of honorable senators is quite reprehensible. Difficulty was experienced in getting even a copy of it. I had to get from the Senate office the original document that was tabled in this place to see what it contained. I do not know whether other honorable senators have had an opportunity to read it. There has been no publicity about it that I can recall in the intervening years since 1957. I confess that this is the first time that with any degree of particularity matters relating to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve have come to my notice. It just shows how quietly the document has been filed and kept without being discussed. The failure of the Government, in initiating debate on this subject, to direct the most particular attention of the Parliament and of the nation to it alarms me.

Now I wish to refer to some of the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister. I want to controvert three or four of them. He said -

There has been some suggestion that our forces in Malaya went there primarily for purposes of internal security. This is not so.

Let me show how the Prime Minister has contradicted himself. I propose to refer to what he said in the House of Representatives on 19th September. 1957, as reported at page 800 of “Hansard”. The passage I shall read shows clearly that he thought to the contrary. He said -

The Government of the Federation continues to be faced by a campaign of armed Communist terrorism within its borders.

I emphasize the next passage -

If has accordingly requested the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to continue to make their forces available for use in emergency operations against the terrorists. Australia has been glad to join with the United Kingdom and New Zealand in agreeing to this request which, I repeat, is for the sole purpose of continuing the campaign against armed Communist terrorism.

Senator Branson:

– That is, that particular request.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am reading the passage exactly as the Prime Minister uttered it. He continued -

Apart from the arrangements relating to the terrorists, which are described in a White Paper issued to-day in Kuala Lumpur and London, the Government of the Federation will rely upon its own security forces for the discharge of its responsibilities for the maintenance of law and order - so that the one thing we are involved in is anti-terrorist action, the local government dealing with the maintenance of law and order.

Again I refer to the forgotten document, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on the same day as this statement was made and which was subsequently tabled in this place on 2nd October.

That document shows most clearly what our commitment is in relation to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. I know of no place where the function of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve in the Far East is defined other than in that White Paper - 1 cannot tell- honorable senators the date of it - which was filed in the circumstances that I have outlined. How unsatisfactory it is, if we have any sense of nationhood, to have troops committed to activity and to risking their lives on the basis of arrangements made without signature and without specific ratification by the Government! The ambiguity of the agreement of 12th October, 1957, between the United Kingdom and Malaya is apparent from the need there was to clear up whether the provisions relating to the status of forces set out in that agreement applied to our men. It led a lot of people into confusion,’ including the Prime Minister of Malaya. The Senate will recall -that on 9th March last or thereabout - it was certainly in March - the Prime Minister of Malaya stated that Australia was committed to defending Malaya against any outside aggression.

Senator Gorton:

– They were not his words.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am putting the effect of his statement. I have before me his words as they appeared in a press comment. I think I have quoted accurately the information that is available to me. The report stated -

Australia had no “ understanding “ with Malaya to go to Malaya’s aid if she was attacked by Indonesia, Tunku Abdul Rahman told Parliament to-night.

The Malayan Prime Minister said he was “ terribly sorry “ if he caused embarrassment to Australia by giving this impression in a statement he made at a political rally yesterday.

On the next day he had to correct himself. He said -

I say here in Parliament that there is no such understanding.

Senator Gorton:

– To go to war!

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, to go to war.

Senator Gorton:

– There is no question of defence.

Senator McKENNA:

– I meant if she were attacked. I said that, surely. All this is clouded by obscurity, and that obscurity is not removed by the Prime Minister’s failure to place before the Parliament the most relevant document of all. The Prime Minister of Australia also said this yesterday -

In all these arrangements, and in any to be made, the usual rule will apply that the employment of Australian forces remains under the control of the Australian Government.

Where is that expressed in the agreement between the United Kingdom and Malaya, or Malaysia, in favour of Australia? Where is the rule? Ought it not to be particularized? That is one of the criticisms we offer of the arrangements this Government has been making - leaving at large matters which relate to our security and the lives of our military personnel. The Prime Minister said further - . . it has not been the normal practice of Commonwealth countries to spell out in detail their sense of mutual obligation, nor to confine themselves to legal formulae.

I do not accept that statement at all. We have many examples of the Government’s behaviour to the contrary. For instance, we have an agreement with the United Kingdom concerning the Woomera rocket range. We have an agreement with New Zealand in the Anzus pact. We have an agreement with New Zealand, Great Britain and Pakistan in Seato, and we have an agreement with the United Kingdom and Malaya. The United Kingdom and Malaya, two Commonwealth countries, set down with particularity the terms of the agreement they had reached between themselves.

Senator Cormack:

– But you would not compare an agreement on the use of a rocket range with the internal or external defence of Malaysia, would you?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a matter related to defence. I controvert the Prime Minister’s statement that we should proceed on a basis of good understanding rather than particular understandings. That is the gravamen of the complaint the Opposition makes in this matter. We do not want anything connected with the deployment of our ‘forces outside this country to be left to such arrangements. We want all the arrangements to be particularized most clearly and made public. Quite frankly, that is the burden of our complaint against the Government in this matter.

I refer now to the speech that my leader made last evening. In referring to this aspect of the Government’s attitude, he said - and I endorse every word of it -

Is it the Government’s attitude that Australia need make no special arrangements directly with Malaysia because we are included in arrangements between Malaysia and the United Kingdom? This seemed to be the real purport of to-day’s statement. If this is the Government’s attitude - and I think it is - then I reject it on behalf of the Opposition. We do not accept the proposition that Britain can make arrangements on our behalf in any part of the world, without our direct approval and complete participation. We claim that right both as an independent nation and as a full, free and equal member of the Commonwealth of Nations. If our involvement with the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve is to remain the sole basis of our association, then the Labour Party says, quite bluntly, it is not good enough.

Britain has special responsibilities with regard to Malaysia. She has taken a leading part in the creation of the new State. It is composed df four former British colonies. .For -Britain,

Malaysia is a bridge across which she can disengage politically from her old colonial responsibilities in the new area. Australia’s position is quite different. Though we have supported Malaysia, we have not taken a leading role in its creation. We are not a colonial power and have never had any part, nor wanted any part, in the government of any of the newly federated States of Malaysia. Above all, Malaysia represents to us a new nation in the area where our destiny bes.

I point out to the Senate that once our troops are committed there in some illdefined way, they may encounter all sorts of situations apart from direct armed attack on Malaysia. Those situations include the matters to which Mr. Calwell referred particularly. He pointed to the possibility of the recurrence of Communist terrorist activities; of internal rebellion, not necessarily Communist-inspired; and of an internal breakdown of the State. He mentioned the possibility of activities by insurgents in Sarawak and Sabah, the possibility of border conflicts on the island of Borneo, the possibility of internal clashes between the Malayan and Chinese populations of the new State, and the possibility of outright conflict between Malaysia and other nations; and, overriding all those possibilities, there is the common threat from Communist China, a threat which Malaysia shares with Indonesia, the Philippines and Australia. 1 shall now quote Mr. Calwell’s comment in that respect. He said -

With the exception of the first and last two possibilities and today’s statement, the present arrangements do not say what Australia would do, or how our troops would be involved in such events. And as far as the last is concerned - the containment of communism - the present unsatisfactory arrangements with Malaya prevent our troops in Malaya from playing their proper part in Seato.

In saying that, he had in mind Article 8 of the agreement of 12th October, 1957, which denied the use of bases without the consent of Malaya, at it then was, in the event of war outside the territory. There has to be the complete concurrence of Malaya. That, of course, prevents our forces there from being used for activity under Seato unless they completely withdraw from Malaya, and the bases certainly cannot be used.

We had a policy, in the situation I have outlined, of claiming that our troops should not be in Malaya in any undefined way.

Recently, our federal conference reviewed the position. We have repealed that position altogether, having regard to the fact that we are facing a new situation, with a new state, and recognizing that some new approach to our commitments in this area is required.

Senator Cormack:

– That repeal was made before the new state came into being.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, it was. That was early in August, on the eve of the formation of the new state. The policy was repealed also because we felt very strongly that there should be clear, open and public treaty arrangements in the matter and that our commitments should not be locked away in some obscure pigeon-hole. We then expressed the following official view of the Australian Labour Party throughout Australia: -

Labour does not believe that Australian forces should be committed overseas except subject to a clear and public treaty which accords with the principles of the declaration of policy which gives Australia an effective voice in the common decision of the treaty powers.

That is a completely unexceptional proposition and one which ought to be accepted.

We are told by the Prime Minister that the Government of Malaysia is completely satisfied with its position in relation to Australia, in the light of last night’s statement. Why would it not be satisfied? It has Australia completely committed. Malaysia is not asked to commit itself to Australia in the slightest particular. The United Kingdom thought it worth while to do so, but not the Australian Government The United Kingdom thought it worth while to tie up bases, but not this Government. We should bear in mind that we have spent vast sums in Malaya on an airfield and a military base. We have no tenure and we have asked for none. That is a situation which the Australian Labour Party will not stand for. We wish Malaysia well and we are happy to help it on its way to nationhood, but we ask that in any arrangements with Malaysia there should be a clear and direct treaty between Australia and that State. We want to ensure that we do not come obscurely into some agreement between the United Kingdom and Malaysia. I think that the present situation is regrettable. One could really expect Malaysia to be satisfied. But are we, and ought we to be satisfied? Have we not anything to ask for, such as an assurance concerning the circumstances in which our troops may be used? Who will command them? Have we not even asked about that? Have we discussed the matter with Malaysia and, if so, with what result?

The Prime Minister has lightly said that the usual arrangements will apply and that we will maintain control, but that is not what we of the Opposition and what the people of this country want to know. We want to know with particularity who will command the Australian forces and the circumstances in which they can be used. I should say that Mr. Calwell stated the position better than I can, and probably better than anybody else in the party could state it, when he referred to this topic at the conclusion of his speech. He said -

Above all, we owe it to our own people, and in particular, our fighting mcn to declare our intentions specifically and openly. In the final analysis, we, here, are dealing with men’s lives. It is true that our troops now in Malaya are volunteers. But they have volunteered for the service of their country, and their country owes it to them to say unmistakably what it expects of them. The conditions under which they might be called upon to fight cannot be left to the discretion of the Malaysian Government, or the decision of the British Comma ad. They are our men, and those who constitute the membership of the National Parliament alone have the right, the responsibility and the duty 10 determine when, where and how they shall be used. The Australian Labour Party will never call on any Australian to shed his blood without telling him, without the least equivocation, why we ask him to make the sacrifice. Labour Governments have mobilized Australia’s armies in two world wars. The people trusted us because we trusted the people. It was on the basis of frankness and trust that we were able to lead the people. We do not intend to depart from that principle now, or ever.

In conclusion, I put it to the Senate that the whole set-up is completely inchoate and clumsy. There has even been a very bad presentation of the position to the Senate. There is confusion. There may even be suppression of the document to which I have referred so often. There is no mutuality between Australia and Malaysia; there is, in fact, no direct contact between Australia and Malaysia. There is no provision for our tenure or use of bases, or for the control of our forces. The Labour Party regards the Government’s attitude as

I he most casual, incompetent approach to a matter of the utmost significance to our nation, lt betrays, I would say, a government that is exhausted and incompetent. In a matter so vital to the future of our nation the Government should not be so casual and so light-hearted in its approach.

My last word is that what is being done, and what has been done, pay no regard to a proper conception of Australia’s nationhood.

Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.15 pan.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy and Minister assisting the Minister for External Affairs · Victoria · LP

– Just before the suspension of the sitting we heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate speaking on behalf of the Opposition. Without wishing to be in the least offensive I can only characterize that speech as regrettable in the circumstances facing Australia. Here we have a situation of great moment to the future of Australia. We have an historic moment when, for the first time for decades, there is what appears to be a serious threat to peace in our region of the world. We have an Australian Government which tells the people and the Parliament precisely what it proposes to do in these circumstances, and what it believes is the proper course for the Australian nation in circumstances which might arise. The Government states what it believes should be made clear as the opinion of the Australian people in the circumstances that exist.

Those things having been made clear by the Government to the people and to the Parliament, I hoped to hear clearly from a responsible Opposition whether it does or does not agree with the resolve stated by the Prime Minister as the Government’s view on what Australia should do. We have had no clear statement. We have had, instead, an arid, disappointing and irrelevant run over what happened between 1957 and the present date. I believe that it was also an inaccurate traversal of the events of that period. However, I leave that point to be taken up by other honorable senators on this side of the chamber because it is not my main bone of contention.

My main bone of contention is that with this situation facing Australia we have had no statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Opposition, what the Government proposes is right or wrong, unless it is to be inferred that the Opposition thinks that what was stated on behalf of the Government is wrong. That inference is possible, and indeed I think one is led to that conclusion.

I shall read to the Senate what it is proposed by the Government that Australia should say in the present circumstances and should be prepared to do if the present circumstances should become exacerbated and lead to a disruption of the peace in our own area. I shall leave out certain words which make no difference to the sense of what the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) stated on behalf of the Australian Government. He said -

  1. . we are resolved . . . that if, in the circumstances that now exist . . . there occurs, in relation to Malaysia or any of its constituent States, armed invasion or subversive activity - supported or directed or inspired from outside Malaysia - we shall to the best of our powers and by such means as shall be agreed upon with the Government of Malaysia, add our military assistance to the efforts of Malaysia and the United Kingdom in the defence of Malaysia. . . .

The Prime Minister said that we are resolved to add our military assistance to the defence of Malaysia should that country be attacked from outside or should it be the subject of subversion directed from outside, ls this a proper statement of Australia’s position? ls this a statement which is supported by the Opposition in this Parliament? We do not know.

We have listened to, or read, the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) in another place and we have listened to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, but we still do not know. All we have heard is complaints. Whether they are justified or not - I do not think they are - has no relevance to the statement of what we propose to do in present circumstances, nor do I think there is relevance in remarks as to whether there was a sufficiently carefully drawn up treaty in 1956 or 1957 when Australian troops first joined the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. We have heard questions about whether Australia should have a tenure of the Butterworth base which we built in Malaya. We have heard suggestions that because we have made firm treaty arrangements with Commonwealth and other countries - I emphasize the words, “ and other countries “ - under Anzus and Seato we should therefore have made firm treaty arrangements with Malaya in 1957 and 1960. Let us argue about that, but let us argue about it at some future time.

Let us now have, if not from the Leader of the Opposition, then from his deputy or somebody speaking for the Opposition, a statement in terms as firm, as unequivocal and as unambiguous as those used by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Australian Government. It is not for me or for any of us to say what form this statement should take. If the Opposition believes that it is right for Australia to announce this attitude and, if necessary, to take action to support this attitude, it would be good if it would say so, because then there would be a united Australian approach to this most important matter. But if the Opposition does not think so, if it believes that this was a wrong statement and we should not have said we will support Malaysia if it is attacked externally, or internally by direction from outside, then it would be equally good and honest for it to say that. Then the people of Australia would know of the conflicting opinions on this matter of historic importance, and countries abroad would know. As the matter now stands they can only guess. Why is it that in this moment of history the Opposition in the Senate and in another place, speaking through its leaders, will not say, “Yes, we agree “, or “ No, we do not agree “ ? Either attitude could command respect. The attitude that has been taken by the Opposition cannot command any respect.

I am told, by way of interjection - and this is interesting - that the Opposition wants a treaty with Malaysia. What does that mean? The leaders on the Opposition side have not said so specifically, but it would be nice if they did. Does that mean that unless there is a specific treaty with Malaysia the Opposition disagrees with this resolve to defend Malaysia. If it does, let the Opposition say so through its leaders. I could understand that, if the leaders of the Opposition said, “We demand a treaty spelt out in specific terms, and unless there is one, we oppose this “. That is the implication of what was said, but not the specific statement of the Opposition. Let us at least have that cleared up in the course of this debate.

Support of the concept of Malaysia, which we have heard in another place and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, including well-wishings towards Malaysia and a statement of belief that it is a genuine attempt to get a number of different nationalities and states to achieve a viable economy and a strong nation in this part of the world, are not enough. It is good to know that both major political parties in Australia support the concept of Malaysia; but in respect of a country under threat of attack mere support of a concept is not enough. The suggestion that if an attack is made upon this emergent nation it should be the responsibility of the United Nations to deal with the matter because it was as a result of a United Nations inquiry that U Thant decided the people in this area wanted Malaysia, is not good enough.

I have no doubt that if an attack were launched upon Malaysia or the constituent states of Malaysia, that would be referred to the United Nations. I have no doubt that if the United Nations followed its investigating team’s advice it would lend its support to the attacked Malaysia. But what is going to happen in the meantime, while the attack is being brought to the attention of the United Nations and discussed by the United Nations - while the time taken up by this diplomatic machinery ticks by? An incursion would be made over the boundaries of the new nation, by the use of force. We have to decide whether it is proper, in those circumstances, for Malaysia and the United Kingdom to use force to stop that incursion and, if it is proper, whether it is also proper and right for Australia to add its military assistance in such resistance to invading forces.

Senator Kennelly:

– I take it that the Minister means the Navy too, after its new boats are built by 1969?

Senator GORTON:

Senator Kennelly is dragging the debate down to a lower level than I am trying to keep it on. Let us accept the fact that we have not as much military force as we should have. It would be nice if we had more, for the sake of argument. But the point is this: Is it proper to add such force as we are able to add? That is the question before the Australian people. This is not without reason. lt is not something that the Parliament should not even discuss, as we know when looking back into history. Many people think that the tragic war of 1914-18 occurred because the position that was eventually taken up by the United Kingdom was not made sufficiently clear in advance by Earl Grey. Many people think that that war would not have occurred had the Germans known precisely what England would do if the Germans attacked some other country. It is felt, with some basis of reason, that that tragic war evolved from a miscalculation on the part of the German Emperor.

We have seen in our own generation, in later times, how a dictator, having achieved a minor objective by the deployment and threat of force, and not being opposed by other forces, can be led by miscalculation to employ the same tactics, and how he can make threats and deploy the same force for a major objective and, through such miscalculation, plunge the world into war. If that is true - and I believe history has shown it is true - now that this new nation of Malaysia is threatened with confrontation, and as incursions are made across its borders by men with arms in their hands, and as forces are building up across its border, surely this is the time to make our position clear. Surely this is the time to say that we in Australia at any rate will do what we can to the limit of our ability to lend our strength to defend Malaysia. The Leader of the Opposition in another place commented that Tunku Abdul Rahman had apologized for a statement he had made. Actually, what Tunku Abdul Rahman said was -

Australia is committed to go to war on the side of Malaysia if Malaysia goes to war with Indonesia.

That was not so then, and it is not so now. We are not committed to go to war on the side of Malaysia should war break out as a result of an attack by Malaysia on Indonesia. We are committed solely to the defence of Malaysia should that country be attacked.

Senator Kennelly:

– Is that in writing, oi is it your thought?

Senator GORTON:

– It is not my thought, but the thought of the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Government. He said -

  1. . we are resolved . . . that if, in the circumstances that now exist, and which may continue for a long time, there occurs in relation to Malaysia or any of its constituent States, armed invasion or subversive activity - supported or directed or inspired from outside Malaysia - we shall . . . add our military assistance to the efforts of Malaysia and the United Kingdom in the defence of Malaysia’s territorial integrity and political independence.

That is clear and unequivocal, and is the answer to Senator Kennelly. It is the Government’s thought. What I want to know is this: Is it also the thought of Senator Kennelly, speaking on behalf of his party? I sincerely hope that it is.

We have heard a long and legalistic argument as to what Australian troops have been doing in Malaya over the past six, seven or eight years. They have been there - and this is borne out by the papers quoted by the Leader of the Opposition himself - as a part of the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve, and their services have been contributed to that reserve by the Australian Government. The purposes of that reserve were to protect Malaya and other parts of the Far East against any external attack.

During the time that those troops were there, Communist-directed subversion broke out in Malaya, lt was evidenced by the throwing of hand grenades into isolated rubber plantations, by the slaughter of people working on plantations, by the ambushing of convoys and by all the brutality and all the lasciviousness of such guerrilla warfare. Australian troops, with the permission of the Australian Government, being there for the purposes of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve, were made available for use in this internal emergency, because, though directed from outside, it was an internal emergency. The fact that they were made available for such action inside Malaya does not mean that that was the only purpose for which they were there, as the Leader of the Opposition seems to indicate. It was a use made of these troops, with the Australian Government’s permission, without detracting from the main purpose for which they were in that country, anc! both of those purposes I am prepared at any time to support. Neither of them, might I say once again, is relevant to the particular case that we are discussing here to-day.

We are told, if we are told anything by the Opposition - and perhaps this is the nub of the proposals put forward - that Australian troops should not be there and should not be used, and that the Prime Minister’s statement will not be supported by the Opposition unless there is a detailed, spelled-out treaty between Malaysia and Australia.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is not true.

Senator GORTON:

– I am told that that is not true. I am glad to hear that. I hope that at some stage the truth will emerge, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be able to show me why what I have said is not true. I have said that that seems to be the position, because we have not had any unequivocal support of the statement made by the Prime Minister of what Australia is resolved to do. The first thing, I believe, that any honest Opposition should do-

Senator Kennelly:

– Honest?

Senator GORTON:

– Yes. The first thing is to say, “ We support this resolve so expressed “, or “ We do not support this resolve so expressed “, or “ We support it, but only conditionally “. We have not had any one of those statements made, but the inescapable implication of the speeches of both the Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader of the Opposition here is not that they support the Prime Minister’s statement conditionally but that there must be some conditions precedent before they will even consider supporting it, and that those conditions precedent must include the signing of some specified treaty between Malaysia and Australia. Then, perhaps, they will make up their minds whether or not this is a proper thing to do.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What have you against a treaty with Malaysia?

Senator GORTON:

– Nothing at all. All I want to know is whether this is a condition precedent on the part of the Opposition. Let us know where we stand. We do not know whether the Opposition supports this resolve, but we believe that it does not. The Opposition indicates that it does not support it.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You did not know where you were going when Eden went into Suez.

Senator GORTON:

– What an extraordinary proposition! Here we have before us for debate a clear, unambiguous statement, and we are seeking to find out in an equally clear and unambiguous way whether we have the support of the Opposition, yet we have some half-baked interjection about the Suez incident, which took place ten years ago in another part of the world. Does the Opposition’s preoccupation with Suez prevent it from giving the sort of answers I am asking it to give? If it does, then God save us! But to return to the theme that I was seeking to bring out, not for any political purposes whatever-

Senator O’Byrne:

– Not much!

Senator Kennelly:

– God forbid! The thought of it is enough.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about 7th December for election day?

Senator GORTON:

– I find this a most extraordinary reaction on the part of the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite are talking about an election date. Let me ask them, or at least those with some real allegiance to Australia, “ In these circumstances, is it not possible-

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to order. I do not think that any member of the Opposition should be alluded to in that manner by the Minister for the Navy. The Minister suggests ‘that only some members of the Opposition owe allegiance to Australia. 1 should like that remark withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will withdraw that imputation.

Senator GORTON:

– Yes. Mr. President. Which particular phrase do you wish me to withdraw? I have no objection to withdrawing it. I just want to know. I appeal to all members of the Opposition with a real allegiance to Australia - let me put it in that way.

Senator Kennelly:

– Again I rise to order. I believe that in any House of Parliament, when the President or the Speaker directs a member to withdraw, it is a matter of courtesy that there will be an unequivocal withdrawal of the expression objected to.

Senator GORTON:

– I did that.

Senator Henty:

– He did.

Senator Kennelly:

– He did not.

Senator GORTON:

– I do not want to get into any argument with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think that this is just an attempt to interrupt my speech. I happily withdraw what he wants me to withdraw. It is of no significance. The point I made was that in trying to get a clear statement on this matter I was not trying to get a clear statement for party political purposes. That comment aroused jeers from Senator Kennelly and some other honorable senators opposite. I put this point to them all: Is it not conceivable that in a matter of this moment, involving the possible use of Australian troops and the circumstances under which Australian troops might be used, there are other than party political reasons for trying to get a clear statement, one way or the other, from both sides on the attitude that ought to be taken up? It is possible, surely, that people with Australia’s interests at heart believe that it would be good if both parties agreed entirely on these matters. While it would be not good if they disagreed, it would be better for that disagreement to be known and clear than for it to be confused and obscure. That is the reason why I am constantly seeking, and why I hope eventually that I shall find, a statement on behalf of the Opposition to this effect: “We do support this resolve and we believe that if Malaysia is attacked it is right for Australia to give such military assistance to Malaysia as it can give under that attack “. If we cannot elicit that statement, let us at least elicit one saying, either: “We do not support this resolve and we think that if Malaysia is attacked we should keep out”, or, “ We will support it, but only on conditions “. Let the Opposition then state those conditions, whatever they may be, and then, at least, we shall know where we stand.

In the situation in which we find ourselves, in view of the ‘threats to which Malaysia is at present subjected and the possibilities which may disrupt the peace in our region of the world at any moment, the Government, having set its resolve for the future circumstances that may arise, clearly, precisely, unambiguously, in terms which cannot be misunderstood, before the Parliament and the people, has so stated its resolve that it can be the subject of debate and of agreement or disagreement. We have not engaged in a legalistic picking over of conditions ten years ago under which Australian troops first went to Malaya. I am sure that others on the same side of the chamber as I am could win a legalistic argument on that subject, but it would get us nowhere. The question that needs to be answered is this: Will members of the Opposition stand up and be counted on one side or the other and let Australia and the world know whether Australia is a united nation on this and, if not, why it is not? Then, in this historic moment, at least we can have the lines clear for ourselves and the world to judge our attitude.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania

Mr. President, because of the dangerous state of affairs to the north of Australia, this is one time when Australia should be speaking with a national voice. I have been waiting for a number of years to hear an authoritative statement such as has now been made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies). I think it is a statement which leaves nothing to the imagination of any person who may intend to interfere with democratic processes in Malaysia. We now know that Australia will be committed in these areas, not only safeguarding those countries in which we hope to see democracy flourish, but also to contribute towards the front line defence of Australia itself. lt has taken what might be called a “ little Pearl Harbour “ to bring this about

I do not suppose that we should go back over what should have happened in the years that have gone by. But I think that we have made mistakes in the past by not having firm assurances from the Government on other aspects of affairs to the north of Australia. Going back a little way, I believe that such a strong statement should have been made in the case of West Irian. In that area, a portion of New Guinea taken over by force of arms and bluff by Indonesia, we can be faced with a position similar to that which exists in Sarawak and Borneo to-day. We can be confronted by Indonesia on exactly the same pretext as that on which it is confronting the constituent parts of Malaysia at this moment. If people in our Territory of New Guinea should say that they want to determine their own form of government and their own way of life, why would not Indonesia confront us in New Guinea? Do not honorable senators think that there could also be a confrontation in Portuguese Timor at any moment? So, as I say, I have read and heard with great pleasure the very strong statement of the Government concerning its commitments to try to safeguard democracy in these areas and provide a front-line force for the defence of Australia.

I listened to the answers that have been given by the Opposition to the ministerial statement and I cannot understand the Opposition’s philosophy at all. It reminds me of the oracle at Delphi in ancient Greece. When anybody wished to have a prophecy as to what would happen in the future he went to the oracle at Delphi, asked a question, and was given an answer written on a leaf. That answer was always correct because it was so ambiguous as to permit of any interpretation. Consequently, the Delphic oracle was never wrong. It seems that the Labour Party is trying to emulate the oracle in making its prophecies for the future and its statements on what has already happened. A similar method of argument was employed in connexion with the provision of aid to non-State schools. Opposition senators spoke with two voices. Some were able to say one thing while those who opposed them could say the opposite. The same situation existed in connexion with the base at North West Cape. By using the methods that I have described, Opposition senators were able to say whatever they liked and were always right. They are adopting the same tactics in relation to the Malaysian situation.

Those Opposition senators who wish to do so have been placed in the position of being able to go on the hustings and say, “ We should bring back our troops from Malaya”. This morning, I spoke to one who might be called a left-wing member of the Australian Labour Party and who was not allowed to enter the debate on this subject in another place. I asked him, “ What do you think of the speech by Mr. Calwell? “ He replied: “ It was a very fine speech indeed. He has not committed us to anything.” That attitude is wrong. At this moment, it is a disastrous attitude. As I have said, we must speak with a national voice on this matter. As the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) has said, members of the Labour Party have to be definite about what they are going to do. Is their policy to be summed up in the words, “ No treaty and no help for Malaysia “? Some members of the Labour Party say that that is their policy; others say that it is not. We have to get the position straight. If the Government will not sign a treaty, members of the Opposition should say definitely whether they will oppose or support the sending of troops to Malaysia if they should be needed.

A lot has been said about treaties that should have been made. Senator McKenna said that in Malaya we had built airfields over which we had no control and he asked, “ Why don’t we have a treaty to make sure that we have some control over those air bases? “ What would have happened if this Government had laid such a treaty before the Senate7 The Government would have been vehemently opposed by the Labour Party, because until August of this year Labour’s policy was that our troops should be withdrawn from Malaya. So how in the world could the Labour Party have supported a treaty which gave to us control over bases in Malaya?

The making of this statement by the Prime Minister has been an outstanding event in the history of this part of the world. We know that very serious trouble will arise in this area from the activities of Indonesians who have a very strong sense of nationalism and those who are under the Communist influence of the P.K.I. All these people - the non-Communists and the Communists - are moving in the same direction and we must expect trouble. We as a nation must be prepared to help those who are attacked. If we stand aside, we cannot expect any help from other people. If we are not prepared to help others in their difficulties, how can we call for help when we need it? I am pleased that the Government has made such a forthright statement. I am very disappointed that the Opposition is not getting behind the Government so that we can present a nation front to the world, particularly to the Indonesians. They need to be shown that we will take a strong stand. They suffer to a certain extent from a sense of being indestructible. Indonesia’s leader, President Soekarno, has been a prominent figure in the formation and development of that nation, and I believe that when he passes out of this life he will want to do so from that position of prominence.

Anything could happen in this part of the world. I ask those people who are not in agreement with what the Government has done to think again about our own safety and to pull together with the Government on this issue. One result of this situation should be a strengthening of Australia’s defences. I am reminded of what happens when elections are held. Preparation for a by-election helps organizations to marshal their strength for a general election. Events in the Far East should lead the Government to ensure that our defences are strong and that control of Polaris submarines around our coastline from the base at North West Cape will be efficient. I say to those people who are opposed to the Government’s stand or who are half-hearted about it: Get behind the Government for the sake of Australia herself and to help those people who are trying to safeguard themselves against Communist influence, which could lead to the destruction of this part of the world, including Australia.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I rise to discuss the statement that was presented to the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) and which was read to honorable senators by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir William Spooner). Malaysia is a newly constituted member of the Commonwealth of Nations - that undefined and undefinable. group of nations to which Australia belongs. Australian political opinion has never left any doubt about where Australia should stand in relation to Malaysia. In this Parliament, Australian attitudes have been crystallized by spokesmen for the Australian Government and the Opposition. It is a matter for great satisfaction that in regard to the essentials in this important issue there is an appearance of a’ great measure of agreement. We can never be happy when there is a major divergence of opinion about foreign policy. This is one matter in relation to which Australians demand that we should stand together. 1 welcome the very firm statement on the Australian position which was made by the Prime Minister. It was commendably brief, concise and to the point. I regret that the speeches delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in another place and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate were not equally firm in their commitment. The Leader of the Opposition in another place said that the United Nations had a major responsibility in sustaining Malaysia. We all agree with that statement. But what should concern Australia most is a determination on our part to stand with this new member of !he Commonwealth of Nations. To my mind, our shared responsibility in the United Nations does not lessen but somewhat increases Australia’s obligation towards Malaysia. I shall not follow after Senator McKenna in his references to the Indonesians. I am content to leave their actions as a new and emergent nation to the judgment of their own consciences and to the bar of world opinion.

The brunt of the criticism which has been levelled against the Government bears upon the non-existence of a specific treaty with the newly formed Malaysia. It seems to me that this point of criticism is a kind of smokescreen to cover the retreat of the Labour Party from an untenable position - from previously held opinions about the maintenance of Australian forces in Malaya. We have heard lately many accusations by the Opposition that the Government has stolen policies advocated by the Australian Labour Party. No one on this side of the Senate will quarrel with ‘.his endorsement of the Government’s wisdom in the vital matter of stationing troops in Malaysia. Let us look more carefully at the charge that we have no specific treaty with Malaysia. The Leader of the Opposition has not shown the necessity for such a treaty in view of the very firm undertaking that existed, in relation to Malaya and which recently was confirmed in the text of a letter, dated 18th September, 1963, which was received by the Australian High Commissioner in Malaysia from the Prime

Minister of Malaysia and presented to the Senate with the text of the agreement between Great Britain and Malaya.

A great deal of time, was devoted by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to involved and legalistic arguments criticizing the lack of a separate and more definite treaty. In his enthusiasm for a similar definition of the Australian-Malaysia agreement, he created the impression that his real desire was to emphasize Australia’s independence and separateness from agreements entered into by Britain. While our relationships with Britain remain as they are, can we in fact ask for such a measure of separate definition? Was not Senator McKenna saying, in effect, that we cannot enter wholeheartedly into partnership with Great Britain but need a separate agreement? Why did he suggest that? Does he envisage our contracting out of full participation with Britain? It must be obvious to all that had Labour’s previous policy been carried out there would not now be Australian troops in Malaysia.

I suggest that the best guarantee of Australian goodwill towards Malaysia is the presence of Australian troops in its territories during the difficult and dangerous hours of the birth of the new state. The people of Australia and Malaysia understand this fact better than the terms of any legal document. The presence of Australian soldiers representing Australia at this time is, I am sure, of much more significance to the Malaysian villager than are documents filed in the pigeon-holes or archives of the. state. To him, that is a guarantee which means much more than formal treaties and legalistic argument. We have given our assurance and we have demonstrated our good faith towards the people of Malaysia. My only regret to-day is that the assurance of support for Malaysia given by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is not equally convincing.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- I am pleased that the debate has begun to warm up a little. I always think it is bad to see this chamber ‘ in a quiet mood. I propose to answer the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) not with my own words, but with- those of the Minister for

Trade (Mr. McEwen), who is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. The words of the Deputy Prime Minister regarding Labour’s attitude to this matter should satisfy the Minister for the Navy. I hope that Senator Prowse, who is a supporter of the Australian Country Party, also will heed the Minister’s words. Mr. McEwen spoke last night in the House of Representatives at 8.35. so it is difficult to understand how the Minister for the Navy could have forgotten so soon what he said. Mr. McEwen stated -

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) has said in crystal clear terms that Labour supports the concept of Malaysia; that Labour welcomes its creation.

Later in his speech he said -

Clearly, in the critical points of his declaration of Labour’s attitude, he was, I am happy to say, taking exactly the same line as the Government takes.

With all respect to the Minister for the Navy, are we to take notice of what he has said or of what the Deputy Prime Minister of this country has said? The Deputy Prime Minister was present in another place when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. He followed the Leader of the Opposition in the debate. I mean nothing personal against the Minister for the Navy when I say that I think the people outside the Parliament would come down on the side of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator Gorton:

– I told you that accepting the position was not enough.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Minister may try to get out of the difficulty in the best way he can, but I think it will take a little effort to do so. The Deputy Prime Minister also said -

Again to put the record straight, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition makes it quite clear to-night that ‘the Labour Party is not now advocating the withdrawal of Australian troops from Malaysia.

Senator Gorton:

– What has that to do with it?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Nothing at all. Mr. McEwen went on to say -

I do not find myself happy to-night to be in criticism of the Australian Labour Party on this issue.

Senator Kendall:

– Why do you not read what the Prime Minister said?

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the honorable senator wishes to rise and read all the speeches, I do not mind. In case he did not hear what I said, I remind him that I read from the beginning of a paragraph to a full stop in the report of Mr. McEwen’s remarks. I repeat that the Deputy Prime Minister said -

I do not find myself happy to-night to be in criticism of the Australian Labour Party on this issue.

With great respect, I would also refer Mr. McEwen’s speech to my friend Senator Prowse, seeing that he too is a member of the Australian Country Party. I can quite understand, of course, why members of the Liberal Party would not take for granted what Mr. McEwen says, because people who walk around this building hear certain things. I do not know whether the rumour I am repeating is true or not, but it is said that the doves are not so happy together as they used to be.

Senator Kendall:

– Have you not got any intelligence?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have sufficient to be able, at least, to quieten my friend, the Minister for the Navy.

Senator Henty:

– You think you have.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not talking to the Minister for Customs and Excise.

Senator Gorton:

– Do you want me to interject?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not mind whether you do or not.

Senator Gorton:

– Are you asking me to?

Senator KENNELLY:

-If you want to, and the President will allow you to, I will certainly not object. I am not in the habit of objecting to a person who interjects. However, let me go on with my speech.

In my opinion Senator McKenna has given a thorough analysis of the speech delivered by the Leader of the Government and of the documents that were tabled. I am most amazed - I say exactly the same as Senator McKenna did - that we were not allowed to see Annex I that is attached to Article II. In relation to Article IV., mention is made of Annexes 2 and 4. I wonder how many Government supporters have seen these annexes? Then there is also Annex 3 to Article V. that we have not seen. Is it any wonder that the Leader of the Opposition asks why, if this debate is to be carried on as it ought to be, members of the Parliament have not seen these documents? If the Minister had told us that the representatives of Malaysia and of the United Kingdom would prefer that we should not see them, at least we would have known where we stood, but nothing like that has been said. We were given roneoed copies of documents, but when we read them we wonder what has happened to the annexes. I looked at the end of the documents and found that the annexes were not attached. I concluded that we were not intended to get them.

Senator Cormack:

– Do you not think that the Leader of the Opposition would have agreed to read the documents under the normal terms on which such documents would be provided by the Prime Minister - that is, to treat them as confidential documents?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Why was not that suggested? If the Government cannot trust the members on its own side, other than those on the ministerial front bench, to read the documents, and if it cannot trust any one on this side except the Leader of the Opposition, then at least it should tell us. One would think that something at least would have been said. How can we get documents that we are supposed to study?

Senator Cormack:

– Not you,, but the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the Leader of the Government had been good enough to say to the Leader of the Opposition, “ Article II. refers to Annex I, and you are the only one who will be allowed to see it “, I would have been quite happy. If the Government does not trust its backbenchers I do not mind. I am only making a bald statement of fact.

It is not my purpose to repeat the arguments which the Leader of the Opposition Has put forward. From the demeanour of honorable senators on the Government side, I am sure that if they had realized what was coming we would not be debating the Malaysia issue to-day. Just have a look at them. They do not seem to be in such a gleeful mood as they are as a rule.

Senator Wright:

– You do not suggest, surely, that this is an occasion for pleasure? This should be the most sober debate we have had in the Senate for years.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I believe it ought to be, but I do not think there should be scowls about it. We should be able at least to debate the matter without scowls.

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– What about getting on with the debate?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I will get on with it in my own way and in my own time. I say to the Leader of the Government, with great respect, that the President is in charge of the chamber. If I am out of order the President will tell me so.

The speech covering about one page and a half of “ Hansard “ that was made in another place yesterday was a remarkable one. In my opinion it sells Australia short. I should explain why I say that. Should we deal with the question of Malaysia in the same way as the United Kingdom deals with it? Under the Statute of Westminister, Australia was given certain rights. It is a free, independent nation. This whole problem is right at our door. Why can we not have a treaty? Up to date, as has been said by an honorable senator opposite, it has been all give, as far as Australia is concerned, and no take. Later I shall mention what Britain did. I do not think that we can ever quibble with what Britain does when it comes to danger.

Senator Mattner:

– That is interesting.

Senator KENNELLY:

– It is interesting, and it is true.

Senator Mattner:

– I am glad of that admission.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am delighted to make it, because it is the truth. I am delighted further that Britain has given up a further portion of its colonial empire. In this changing world it is wise that she should. I believe that the more she divests herself of her colonial possessions the mightier will her voice become in the world’s councils. No one regrets more than I do the decline of British power and prestige in world affairs. It is unfair. I know, and every one else knows, what Britain suffered in two world wars. It is handy to have friends come in, fresh, during the last quarter, but Britain stood the brunt of the First World War and she again stood the brunt of war from 1939 to 1941. I have no desire to say anything that 1 would regret about our United States allies. I remember vividly t hat day in World War II. when the first ships arrived at Port Melbourne with American troops. Like everyone else I took my family down to see them arrive and it was a great thrill. Nevertheless, we should not forget that Britain stood alone from 1939 to 1941 and, in so doing, was forced to sell a tremendous amount of her investments throughout the world in order to keep going.

Senator Branson:

– And we stood with her.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not suggesting otherwise. No one suggests that Australia has not stood by Britain. I notice from my list that the honorable senator who interjected will speak in this debate. I hope not to interrupt him.

Senator Branson:

– You did the other day.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I get my share, too. I am trying to say something about which I feel very deeply. I do not like to see Britain’s standing in world affairs lowered as it is to-day. She has played a noble part in world history.

Senator Branson:

– I agree with you.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am delighted that you do.

Senator Branson:

– But we did not need a treaty.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator KENNELLY:

– All we say about Malaysia is what Mr. Calwell said in another place last night: It must be remembered that the United Nations commission, after; a full investigation, found that the majority of people in Sarawak and North Borneo wanted to join Malaysia. That finding, Mr. Calwell said, weighs very heavily with members of the Labour Party in supporting Malaysia. He added that Labour believes that should any dispute arise in the future about Malaysia, such dispute or disputes should immediately come before the United Nations.

I now come to the crux of the matter. What role will Labour play in regard to a direct commitment on Malaysia? Before that question is answered, let us look at the Government’s attitude. The Leader of the Government in the Senate said, in effect, that the importance of Malaysia to the security of the zone in which we in Australia live is such that we cannot stand aloof. Nobody disagrees with that, but surely Australia should at least follow the same procedure as that taken by the United Kingdom. Britain signed an agreement with Malaya and, thanks to the Minister, that document has been tabled in the Senate.

The agreement between Malaya and Great Britain relates to mutual defence. 1 propose to read some provisions from the agreement. It contains these words -

And whereas the Government of the Federation of Malaya and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recognize that it is in their common interest to preserve peace and to provide for their mutual defence;

Then Article VI. states -

In the event of a threat of armed attack against any of the territories or forces of the Federation of Malaya or any of the territories or protectorates of the United Kingdom in the Far East or any of the forces of the United Kingdom within those territories or protectorates or within the Federation of Malaya, or other threat to the preservation of peace in the Far East, the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and of the United Kingdom will consult together on the measures to be taken jointly or separately to ensure the fullest co-operation between them for the purpose of meeting the situation effectively.

Britain looks after its own, and she cannot be blamed for doing so. Britain does not want to come into this area, but she says that in the event of any of her territories being threatened by attack she and Malaya will act together. Article VI. dealt with the threat of armed attack. Then Article VII. states -

In the event of an armed attack against any of the territories or forces of the Federation of Malaya or any of the territories or protectorates of the United Kingdom in the Far East or any of the forces of the United Kingdom within any of those territories or protectorates or within the Federation of Malaya, the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and of the United Kingdom undertake to co-operate with each other and will take such action as each considers necessary for the purpose of meeting the situation effectively.

There is nothing wrong with that provision, and I am delighted to see that Senator Mattner is nodding his head in agreement. If that provision is acceptable, why is there not a similar agreement with Australia? Is there any objection to Australia having an agreement such as that? Was there anything in the Government’s statement to indicate that if Papua and New Guinea were invaded Malaysia would help us? If that is the intention, let it be put on paper so that we will know. I think an agreement such as that would be fair. As much as 1 want Australia to be friendly with Indonesia - I am sure that is the wish of all honorable senators - it is not a bad idea to be prepared just in case of eventualities.

Senator Gorton:

– ls that to be a condition of such an agreement?

Senator KENNELLY:

– It the Minister will listen I will make the speech in my own way. It might take me a little longer than it would take him, but I will get there sooner or later.

Senator Gorton:

– I thought you might be prepared to answer the question. I am sorry.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is all right. I invite the Minister to read the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen); I am sure that that will occupy his time profitably. Article DC. of the United Kingdom-Malaya treaty states -

The Government of the United Kingdom will consult the Government of the Federation of Malaya when major changes in the character or deployment of the forces maintained in the Federation of Malaya as provided for in accordance with Article III. are contemplated.

There is no provision in that article for consultation with the Australian Government. All that the Government has said is that if Malaysia is threatened we will be in.

Senator Gorton:

– By such means as are agreed upon with the Government of Malaysia.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Government has said that we will be in. There are five points in this agreement between the Governments of Malaya and the United Kingdom. Article X. states -

The Government of the Federation of Malaya and the Government of the United Kingdom will afford each other an adequate opportunity for comment upon any major administrative or legislative proposals which may affect the operation of this Agreement.

I, ask again: If it is good enough for Britain, why is it not good enough for us? I ask honorable senators opposite who have read the Prime Minister’s statement whether it can be construed as providing mutual agreement between Malaysia and Australia. It is true that the Prime Minister in his usual way pledged Australia to go to the aid of Malaysia, but not one thought was given to a provision that Malaysia should come to our aid. When I say that, I mean also to the aid of Papua and New Guinea if anything happened there.

Senator Gorton:

– Would you make that a condition?

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the Minister will curb his impatience, I shall get through in my own time.

Senator Mattner:

– It would be fair to assume that that is your opinion.

Senator KENNELLY:

– You may ask, and I have the right to answer or not answer. As late as 22nd March this year, before the formation of Malaysia, the Minister for External Affairs (Sir Garfield Barwick) told the House of Representatives that there was no formal military alliance between Australia and Malaya. So it seems that the Government is prepared to have our troops fight if needed in Malaysia, as with Malaya, without a treaty that would at least be in the form of a mutual defence pact between the two countries. The Prime Minister has made a number of statements explaining why our troops are in Malaya. Up to yesterday, it was always said that they were there on account of Communist guerrillas. Now, of course, another reason is given. The Prime Minister said -

There has been some suggestion that our forces in Malaya went there primarily for purposes of internal security. This is not so. As I have indicated, they went there and are there as a part of a strategic reserve with the United Kingdom and New Zealand and as a contribution to the defence of the South-East Asian area.

It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition said in the House of Representatives, that only this Government can reconcile the irreconcilable. Speaking on behalf of the Australian Labour Party he said - :

We regarded the arrangement with Malaya as completely unsatisfactory. If nothing more formal than the same arrangement is to continue with Malaysia, we will regard that as equally unsatisfactory.

The Labour Party’s policy on military aid to Malaysia has been stated without any equivocation. Might I remind supporters of the Government of what was said by the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), who is the Deputy Prime Minister, because these are very happy words to me -

I do not find myselfhappy to-night to be in criticism of the Australian Labour Party. . . .

Labour’s policy on military aid to Malaysia was stated without any equivocation by the Leader of the Opposition when he said that Labour does not advocate the withdrawal of our troops from Malaysia. His words were - . . we are not advocating the withdrawal of Australian troops from the new State of Malaysia, but we are insisting that their continued presence in Malaysia shall be covered by a treaty clear, open and, if possible, mutual, which gives Australia an effective voice in the decisions of the treaty powers.

Is there anything wrong with that? Why should we want to sell our own country short? We want to help these people. They are part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But it is accepted in world history that, with a few exceptions, those who have led Great Britain have been classed as the greatest diplomats in the world, and if it is good enough for Britain’s leaders to put it on the line what is wrong with our attempting to put it on the line too?

Senator Gorton:

– If we put it on the line, would you support the Government’s resolution?

Senator KENNELLY:

– All I am saying is that if you want to put it on the line, do so now. It should have been done before this. The Leader of the Opposition in another place, speaking for the Australian Labour Party, has said that we do not want our troops taken out of Malaysia. When we come to office we will see that there is a treaty and we will honour such treaty obligations to Malaysia as we will honour obligations to any other country.

Senator Gorton:

– So you would go to the assistance of Malaysia if she were attacked?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Has the Minister read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition? Will he take time out to read it instead of interjecting?

Senator Gorton:

– I did read it. He did not say that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I will tell the Minister where it is stated. I would not rise here and speak for the Labour Party. I have not the right to do so. The Leader of the Opposition speaks for the Party.

Senator Gorton:

– On what page of his speech is it to be found?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I will show the Minister. The Leader of the Opposition also said -

Is it the Government’s attitude that Australia need make no special arrangements directly with Malaysia because we are included in arrangements between Malaysia and the United Kingdom? This seemed to be the real purport of today’s statement.

The Australian Labour Party does not agree with that attitude and I as a member of the party do not agree with it. Much as we believe that the United Kingdom has a perfect right to make treaties to protect its rights we also believe that the Statute of Westminster made us a nation with full rights to do what we want - and in relation to Malaysia, this is the place where what we want to do ought to be decided. The Leader of the Opposition said further -

If this is the Government’s attitude - and I think it is- then I reject it on behalf of the Opposition. We do not accept the proposition that Britain can make arrangements on our behalf in any part of the world, without our direct approval and complete participation. We claim that right both as an independent nation and as a full, free and equal member of the Commonwealth of Nations. If our involvement with the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve is to remain the sole basis of our association, then the Labour Party says, quite bluntly, it is not good enough.

That is the policy that the Leader of the Opposition enunciated. I want to deal with one other matter before I close.I want to know what is the motive of the Prime Minister and the Government in bringing forward this matter in this way. I do not think any one would deny that I am fanatically Australian, and I make no bones about it. Some may think this is a narrow view, but that is where I stand. Australia’s defence is too important to be a plaything for party politics, but that does not mean that we will swallow holus-bolus a statement such as that brought down by the Government. We have certain rights to put our point of view, and much as 1 would like to see the Minister for the Navy and myself marching together-

Senator Gorton:

– At least I would like our positions to be clear.

Senator KENNELLY:

– You will get it. 1 have told you once our troops will stay in Malaysia. At the first opportunity that we get, we shall draw up a treaty something like this so that we will get something out of it. I wish the people of Malaysia everything that they wish themselves, but we have an obligation to the people of our own nation. If there were trouble in Papua and New Guinea - let us hope that there will not be - we would all be delighted if assistance could be sent from Malaysia.

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– There may be trouble in Sarawak next week to contend with.

Senator KENNELLY__ We have said that the troops will stay there. Surely no one thinks that if they stay there they will not defend themselves. That would be a very uncommon thing. I would defend myself if I were there, and I am not much of a fighter.

Senator Gorton:

– They are not in Sarawak.

Senator KENNELLY:

– My good friend, the Minister, seems to be making a bit of heavy weather over this. We have said that the troops will stay in Malaya. I ask the Government to make a treaty. There is no reason why it should not. This should not be one-way traffic. The Government should do everything in its power to protect this nation. According to the way in which this proposition is submitted, the Government is not doing all that it could do. I do not say that the Government does not want to do everything possible but in my opinion it is not doing as much as it could do. Why has this debate been initiated? I know that there were rumours about the place that this was to be election bait; that there would be an early election. In fact, I think some one interjected to-day to say that the date had been fixed as 7th December. We would not mind.

Senator Gorton:

– It was some one on your side.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes. I think he is wrong. The Government cannot fight on this issue. It would be killed, because although the people of Australia want to help others they always want provision for some help to themselves, just in case it is needed.

We do not oppose the proposal. We have stated our position clearly. We know where we stand. We hope that the Government will go along with us on the matter of a treaty. It need have no fear about the rest. I regret that this debate has taken place in this way. If it was intended to be an election issue, my advice - whatever little say I have - would be to let us go out and have it. We do not mind. I do not think that the Government is entitled to jeopardize the security of this nation or any part of it, including Papua and New Guinea, by not providing for all the help that it can get. If Malaysia will sign an agreement with Great Britain, it will sign something similar with us. How long does the Government think that would take? The Leader of the Government said that the troops might be in North Borneo next week. Would it take that long to get an agreement? Every one wants a mutual agreement. We should say: We are in for you. Will you be in for us?

Senator Gorton:

– It mav be a good thing to sign an agreement, but without that would you support the Government?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Our troops will stop in Malaysia. That is what our leader says. It cannot be put any more plainly. I do not think that if they are liable to get bashed about they will not have a go. If they do not, it would be very unusual for people of our race. Our leader said that our troops will stop there. When he speaks, he speaks for all of us on this side.

Senator Henty:

– Plus 36?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Isn’t it amazing? It reminds me of the time Sir Philip McBride got annoyed with you boys because, he said, you were not toeing the line. He came to Canberra. In fact, I saw him here and I just grinned. I do not mind that. I believe that every political party must have an administration. How could it live otherwise? Reference to the 36 makes me laugh. It shows how ignorant people are of the make-up of a . big, great political party.

Labour has stated its position. I believe that we have gone as far as the Government has gone. Our troops will stop there and it is nonsense to say that they will not fight when they are there, even if it is next week. Let us get together. Let us get something for this nation. Irrespective of how nice the Malaysians may be - I have no quarrel with them - let us think also of our own nation.

In conclusion, let me say that we should at all times seek to reach understandings with Indonesia and to obtain guarantees through the United Nations, if it is possible, which will make unnecessary any resort to force of arms which would create a danger to our own land. Australia’s security must be the primary concern of all parties. I believe that that thought is in the minds of persons on both sides of the chamber. If it is and we face this question in. this way, Australia’s future, will be safer than it would be if we went our own separate ways.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– First, let me complete the quotation, which Senator Kennelly began, from the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen). The right honorable gentleman said -

I do not find myself happy to-night to be in criticism of the Australian Labour Party on this issue.

He went on to say -

I would have much preferred the Leader of the Opposition to conclude his speech, which he opened very correctly, by making clear to all Australians and to all our friends and those who are not our friends overseas that, as far as Australia’s internal security and relations with other Commonwealth countries are concerned, there is one Australian policy.

Senator Kennelly correctly said that Great Britain stood the brunt of the last war from 1939 to 1941. At one stage, she virtually stood alone, apart from some Commonwealth partners. But do not let us forget that Australia stood right beside her in two world wars and without having a treaty to do so. We did not need such a treaty. As soon as Great Britain declared war, Australia immediately came in behind her because she is one of the family. Senator

Gorton, in passing, perhaps a little provocatively, suggested that the Opposition considered that certain aspects of this matter could be party political. It was interesting to hear the cry which that remark immediately evoked from the Opposition benches. If the Opposition believes that the Australian Government should help Malaysia there is no party political or electoral issue in the matter. Senator McKenna opened his speech by saying that he was shocked. I would say that everybody in Australia was shocked at the failure of the Opposition to support the Government’s promise to help Malaysia, remembering that Malaysia’s defence is intimately tied up with the defence of Australia. I think the Australian people are worse off because of the attitude taken by the Opposition in refusing to support the Government’s statement that we would assist Malaysia. I ask Opposition senators: Do you or do you not agree that we should help to defend Malaysia?

Senator Dittmer:

– You know the answer to that.

Senator BRANSON:

– Not one Opposition senator has said that we should support Malaysia with troops at this point of time. I am not talking of some nebulous position that may arise in six months’ time. Malaysia is facing a crucial issue at this point of time. Yet not one member of the Australian Labour Party in this or the other place has said, “ We will support Malaysia with troops “, as the Government has said that it will do. It must be poor comfort to the Malaysian people in their hour of extremity to know that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna), a man for whom I have a very great respect, places more importance on the question of whether a document was fully discussed in the Senate in 1957 than he does on the question of whether we should support Malaysia. I say that because he devoted more time to that aspect of the subject than to Malaysia’s problems and the question of whether we should give Malaysia organized support. I hope that the people of Malaysia will take some comfort from his speech. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) was specific. He said - . . if, in the circumstances that now exist, and which may continue for a long time, there occurs, in relation to Malaysia or any of its constituent States, armed invasion or subversive activity-

That is definite - supported or directed or inspired from outside Malaysia- ls not that definite? - we shall to the best of our powers and by such means as shall be agreed upon with the Government of Malaysia, add our military assistance to the efforts of Malaysia . . .

That is clear, distinct and definite. But we have heard nothing definite from the Opposition except that we should negotiate some treaty. I have read the speech made by Mr. Calwell, the Leader of the Labour Party in another place, three times and nowhere in it did he state or indicate that he supported the Prime Minister in his offer of help to Malaysia. Nowhere did he say that his party would definitely help Malaysia in her present hour of need. He said that we could have a treaty with Malaysia. How long would that take? Senator Kennelly said that it could be prepared in ten days. But how long does it really take for countries to negotiate a treaty? This new nation of Malaysia is only ten days old. Does the Opposition think that we should have had a treaty drafted and ready for signature on the day that it was formed? It is fighting a war of confrontation for its very existence. Opposition senators talk about negotiating a treaty when Malaysia is desperately looking for assistance.

Senator Gorton:

– We do not even know the terms on which the Opposition would insist.

Senator BRANSON:

– That is so. Mr. Hasluck pointed this out in another place. It is plain to us and to the Australian people that Mr. Calwell’s talk about a treaty at this urgent time in the history of Malaysia is only a sop to his own extreme, left-wing element. In the debate in the other place the only three Opposition speakers were Mr. Calwell, Mr. Makin and Mr. Beazley - three very moderate and right-wing members of the Labour Party. They were the chosen speakers. 1 wonder how much pressure was needed to prevent Mr. Uren and Mr. Cairns from having their say on the matter. The Australian public, at this point of time, is in no mood to accept Labour’s attitude in respect of external affairs and defence. I am sure they would have liked very much to hear what Mr. Cairns and Mr. Uren and some of the other left-wingers of the Labour Party in another place would have said on this subject. I am quite sure that the people welcomed the clear and definite statement made by the Prime Minister. They know where Government supporters stand. The Australian people are not prepared to shirk their responsibilities as the Labour Party is shirking them by hiding behind the need for a negotiated treaty. Where does the Opposition stand? Mr. Calwell said in another place -

Is it the Government’s attitude that Australia need make no special arrangements directly with Malaysia because we are included in arrangements between Malaysia and the United Kingdom? This seemed to be the real purport of to-day’s statement. If this is the Government’s attitude - and I think it is - then I reject it on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Hear, hear!

Senator BRANSON:

- Mr. Calwell rejected the Government’s proposal to give some assistance to Malaysia and Senator O’Byrne supports him.

Senator O’Byrne:

– -That is right.

Senator BRANSON:

Senator O’Byrne confirms what I have said. Mr. Calwell also had the temerity to say -

Further, let me re-emphasize that we owe it to our neighbours to be clear and precise in our commitments and intentions.

Could we have a clearer statement of the Government’s intentions towards our friends than has been made? Let us have a clear and concise statement from the Opposition as to what it would do if it were in government to-day and were faced with this great (responsibility. The Government has said, “ We are prepared to help Malaysia wherever aggression comes from”. The Government and the Australian people are quite conscious of their responsibilities in respect of Commonwealth countries. Australia is still a member of the family. We do not really need a treaty to remind us of our obligations.

I commenced my speech by saying that we did not have a treaty with Great Britain between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945. We did not need to hide behind a mutual treaty, as it has been described in another place. We have been asked what we have against a treaty. We are not opposed to having a treaty. Britain certainly has a treaty with Malaysia, but wc must remember that she was a parent country which was handing over a young nation. Surely Britain had some responsibility towards the new Federation of Malaysia. I can well understand whyBritain has entered into a treaty, but I do not see any need for us to negotiate a treaty. lt has been well known to every Australian and to interested people all over the world since 1955 that the Opposition would have left Malaya in the lurch, because it was the avowed policy of the Labour Party to bring our troops back to Australia and thus allow the Communists to flourish. This policy was qualified at the recent conference of the party in Perth. The Labour Party realized that to say outright that Australian troops would be withdrawn from Malaya would be political suicide. Labour was close enough to holding the reins of office to realize that its policy was full of dynamite, so it decided to change that policy. Now the Opposition says, “ We will have our troops there, but only after a treaty has been negotiated “. The Opposition wants to negotiate a treaty with one of the family! Senator Kennelly, when pushed into a corner by the Minister for the Navy, said, “ We will leave them there and will negotiate a treaty “. When the Minister asked, “ That does not mean to say that they can fight in Sarawak or Borneo? “ Senator Kennelly ran away from the issue by saying, “ If they are shot at they will retaliate “. Goodness gracious me!

Am I to understand that, with this very grave and explosive situation confronting Malaysia at this very second, the Labour Party would withhold help and succour and would not support our guarantee to Malaysia without a written defence treaty? Would the Labour Party withhold help until such time as a treaty was negotiated? Those are questions to which we, and perhaps the Australian public, would like an answer. If that is Labours attitude, I should like everybody in Australia to know it. It is not yet too late for an Opposition speaker to say clearly that the Labour Party is solidly behind the Government in its support of Malaysia in her extremity. It will be interesting to see whether any honorable senator opposite will do so.

Malaysia’s security is vital to Australia and to the whole region in which we live. Surely Indonesia knows that Malaysia and Australia pose no threat to her. Neither Malaysia nor Australia has territorial ambitions. Surely Indonesia knows that the only real cause of fear in Asia to-day is red China. By her actions in Asia over the last few years, red China has shown that she is to be feared. I remind the Senate that it was red China which fomented and backed the North Korean invasion of South Korea; which was responsible for the red guerillas’ endeavour to overthrow the Malayan Government; which destroyed the Tibetan nation and drove its leaders into exile; which was responsible for the fighting in Laos; which has armed and financed and is behind the Communist fighting in South Viet Nam; which was responsible for the attack on India’s border; which was responsible for the constant shelling of Taiwan’s islands, and which has described Australians as “ the running dogs of American imperialism “. Let honorable senators remember that Mao Tse-tung has stated that his policy is that “ political power comes out of the barrel of a gun “.

I mention those facts to point out that Malaysia is closely tied up with our defence. If we take a line from Thailand in the north, down through Malaya and Singapore, across to north Borneo, Sarawak and the Philippines, and then up through Taiwan to Japan and Korea, we have a necklace of approximately 206,000,000 people who are opposed to communism. The main link is Malaysia. So from the point of view of defence Malaysia is intimately tied up with Australia, apart altogether from the humanitarian consideration of trying to help and protect a new, young nation.

This grave and important debate has provided an opportunity for members of the Australian Labour Party to reveal any small elements of statesmanship that they may possess. But in this moment of truth they have been exposed as a gaggle of inconsequential politicians. I welcome and support the Prime Minister’s statement.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- The consequences that will flow to Australians and New Zealanders from the Prime Minister’s statement on our commitments in Malaysia come very vividly before us. The people of Australia and New Zealand are the only white people in all Asia, from Japan to the Mediterranean. We must give very grave consideration to any attitude we may adopt when our future is at stake. I do not think that as a nation we thoroughly understand the significance of the geographical and psychological position in which we are placed. Senator Branson spoke of the old family. The family idea is a grand one. But sitting next to Senator Branson is Senator Laught, who has had a lot of experience with families who have inherited money. Often when money or self-interest comes through the window the family spirit goes out through the door. I suppose Senator Laught has seen some furious struggles waged in family circles - struggles much worse than those which have occurred amongst friends or acquaintances.

Senator Laught:

– I have seen hundreds more of happy families than discordant families.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That may be so. Senator Branson made great play of the family relationship. The concept of the British Commonwealth is an excellent one. The feelings of the members of the Commonwealth are mutual. But recently one member of the family decided to leave because it suited her to do so. The consequences of the departure of that member of the family were not debated in this Parliament. Perhaps this stage in the development - or disintegration - of the British Commonwealth was not of great importance to the Government. In the United Nations and at Prime Ministers’ Conferences we have made our contribution towards the preservation of happiness in the family of Commonwealth nations.

Malaysia is a member of the British Commonwealth and also the closest British Commonwealth country to our shores. We must remember that situated between Malaysia and Australia are other countries, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, which have been associated with Australia in various ways in recent times. As we all know, the people of the Philippines have a great affection for Australia. They looked to Australia to provide the bases for their liberation from the Japanese occupation, as the people of Indonesia looked to Australia for their liberation. In considering events in South-East Asia, it is interesting to recall that when the Dutch were engaged in fighting the Indonesians, Australian forces were not used in the fight, but British forces were. I believe the fact that British forces were thus engaged had a strong influence on the attitude of the Indonesians during the ugly incidents which have occurred in Indonesia during the last two or three weeks. Australians have never fought against their near neighbours. I believe we must have an external affairs policy which will result in the development, rather than the exacerbation, of our contacts and relationships with the countries of SouthEast Asia.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) asked last night in another place -

Is it the Government’s attitude that Australia need make no special arrangements directly with Malaysia because we are included in arrangements between Malaysia and the United Kingdom?

He went on to say -

This seemed to be the real purport of today’s statement.

We do not accept the proposition that other people should make arrangements for the committal of our forces in any part of the world without the expression of views not only by the Cabinet but also by the Parliament and people of this country. We have a new status in South-East Asia. After all, status is a most important matter in the eyes of our neighbours. I am pleased to say that Australia is held in the highest esteem by her neighbours, including Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is our duty not only to try to preserve that esteem but also to enhance it. As the Leader of the Opposition said in another place, we claim the right, both as an independent nation and as a full, free and independent member of the Commonwealth of Nations, to make our own arrangements. We do not accept the proposition that Great Britain should make arrangements on our behalf in any part of the world. He also said -

If our involvement with the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve is to remain the sole basis of out association … it is not good enough.

The facts concerning the stationing of our forces in Malaya in the initial stages are simple. In the post-war years there grew up in Malaya a very strong Communist-guerrilla influence. There is no doubt that the Communists were well organized.

With the retreat of the Japanese, and because Malaya had been reduced to a rock-bottom economic state by the Japanese occupation, the opportunity was created for political, military and economic theorists to come to the fore. The Communist terrorists in Malaya were at that time harassing the other residents of the country who were unable to handle the situation. In order to stabilize the position, a state of emergency was declared. Because of the state of emergency, Australian forces were included in the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve. It has been said that with the aid of our forces the unrest was settled. The day came when the emergency no longer existed, and Great Britain was prepared to hand over to the Malayan people complete responsibility to guide their own destinies. Independence was granted. It is reasonable that the British people should wish to ensure that Malaysia continues to exist as a viable nation. As we of the Australian Labour Party have stated on previous occasions, we welcome the unification of States. It is my belief that the whole world would have been much happier if Maphilindo had come into being instead of Malaysia, because there would then have been unification of Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia.

I wish to refer to a speech made by President Macapagal of the Philippines at the opening ceremonies of the conference of heads of government of the Federation of Malaya, the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of the Philippines, which was held at the Luna Hall, in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Manila, on 30th July last. The President said -

It is the first time in history that the leaders of the three nations of Malay origin in South-East Asia have come together to consider and consult about their common problems. They have come as heads of government, as leaders of sovereign states.

He then made the following most interesting observation: -

Behind that simple fact bes a great deal of history: the history of colonialism in this part of the world; the history of Asia’s long struggle for independence waged through national revolutions; the ending of an age marked by inequality between nations and the exploitation and tutelage of peoples, and the dawn of a new era of freedom based on justice, equity and the rule of law.

During the speech, which was made as a preliminary to the Manila accord, President Macapagal spoke of a unified people in the three nations of Malay origin in South-East Asia. History is continuous and must be thought of in long-range terms. What might appear to be a tremendous crisis to-day may, after a few weeks or months, resolve itself and become just another incident. The nations of the whole of this area of South-East Asia have their own interests, and in their long-range programmes they must consider their common purpose and common interest. It is in Australia’s interest to go along with them in that common purpose and that common interest. There is a much greater threat than is represented by squabbles between neighbours.

Let me make a comparison. I do not see that the sacking of an embassy is much worse than the bombing of a church in Birmingham, Alabama, while coloured children were in it. It is the same stupidity, the same arrogance and the same ignorance in both cases. Do we have to blame a whole nation and take up a military stance against it because of the things that have happened? I was in Bandoeng quite recently, and it was not the British legation that was being sacked at that time. Senator Laught was with me. We saw Chinese shops and offices that had been sacked. Evidently the Chinese in that part of Indonesia had annoyed the people, or perhaps had built themselves into too strong an economic group in that large city. Yahoos, hobbledehoys, bodgies commos or whatever you might call them did the Chinese over good and proper. They turned their cars over, broke the windows of their shops and played merry hell with a big stick. Transfer that conduct into a bigger field. Press propaganda and whispering campaigns can generate amongst these people the same feelings that can lead to embassies being sacked at the drop of a hat. But let us get away from that for a moment. What is the bigger issue?

We have this huge area of land and ocean to our north. It is a natural buffer, and a barrier to the invasion of Australia. Historically Indonesia has been friendly to us through our Commonwealth and Empire associations. It was valuable to us in the greatest threat we have ever faced, militarily and strategically. I have no shadow of doubt that in the future Indonesia will be enormously valuable to us economically as a potential market and also as a potential ally.

Are we to become involved through indirect methods - not by direct methods - in an equal and opposite confrontation. I have only recently learned the significance of this word “ confrontation “. The same thing happens, I suppose, in the case of rival businesses. This is a quid pro quo or tit for tat on the international level. There seem to be a lot of internal stresses and strains and jealousies in Malaysia, and what we are doing at tha moment is to take up a stance which could react to Australia’s disadvantage, considering the importance of our strategic and geographical position in South-East Asia. It is the Labour Parly’s belief that we could and should help the people of Malaysia to maintain their territorial integrity and their way of life. We can assist them, but we are entitled to say to them, “ We are going to help you, but you will have to help us “.

There should be no difficulty with Tunku Abdul Rahman. We met him in Kuala Lumpur and he was most friendly disposed towards Australians. Strange as it may seem, all the leaders of these South-East Asian countries were most friendly disposed towards us. This is the confusing part about it. I believe that, given time, Sir Garfield Barwick would have made worth-while agreements with every one of these countries. If we arc going to stand on our own feet as a proud nation with a lot to offer our neighbours, we should give our neighbours all the help we can. We have workshops in which their people can learn techniques. We can send advisors to them. We can set them an example of what is achieved by the rule of law and democracy. We can be a storehouse, of ideas and techniques that would be valuable to them. Yet we arc involved at this moment in isolating ourselves through indirect methods from one oi these countries that happens to be having a squabble with its neighbour. We on this side of the chamber believe that if we are going to have an arrangement with Malaysia it should be an arrangement with the Malaysian Go vernment, the Malaysian leader and the Malaysian people, and should not be an indirect involvement. In the words of my leader, the present arrangement is not good enough.

There are two or three other points I should like to mention. I wish to refer specifically to a matter that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. He said - . . Australia must insist at all times on making her own decisions with regard to diplomatic policy, and the deployment of troops in the Asian hemisphere, or anywhere else outside Australia.

He went on to say that we owe it to our neighbours to be clear and precise in our commitments and intentions. I have pointed out that our neighbours include the Philippines and Indonesia as well as Malaysia. The Leader of the Opposition continued -

We have the firmest desire to maintain the friendliest relations with Indonesia and the Philippines. I hope they share that desire.

As has been said before, the basis of friendship is mutual trust, or to put it another way, trust is the basis of friendship and friendship is the basis of trust. The very thing on which friendship and trust can be sustained is lack of suspicion. However, I believe that we are creating more grounds for suspicion. I think we would achieve more if we were clear and unequivocal in our approach to this agreement with Malaysia and showed that country that we want it to succeed and that we are prepared to help it to become economically viable. That should be written into an agreement. If the Philippines asked for a similar treaty, we should, in our own interests, be prepared to agree. I believe that if Australia had taken the initiative and shown more leadership in some of the problems that not long ago were only partly resolved in South-East Asia, we would now bc taking the lead in bringing about greater peace in that area. I believe that Australia could have been, and still can be, a great influence in unifying this great area.

What is the alternative to the view I have presented? The very purpose of sending troops to Malaya was to stem communism. In Malaya communism has been checked, but it is still a great problem in Cambodia, Viet Nam and Laos. It is a problem in

Thailand. It spreads right around Burma to Pakistan and India. Between that area and Australia are some thousands of islands and millions of people. Yet among ourselves, to put it at its best, we are not trying to improve the situation which could well be improved to the continuing benefit of Australia and Australians. ,

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I listened with considerable interest to Senator O’Byrne. As one who was with him recently in six countries in South-East Asia I can appreciate some of the ideas that have motivated him to speak as he did. His discussion was most interesting and covered a wide range, but he dealt with a number of matters that are completely out of context in a discussion of our concord with Malaysia. He suggested the possibility of a treaty with the Philippines along the same lines as the one with Mala’ysia. Of course, a treaty such as that would be with a nation quite outside what was once known as the British Commonwealth, and what is now known as the Commonwealth of Nations.

While listening to Senator O’Byrne I gained the impression he thinks there is some great magic about the word “ treaty “. 1 believe, and I hope to be able to show to the Senate, that what has taken place in Malaysia, and, what is more important, what took place immediately after the birth of this new Commonwealth nation, is of more importance to the people of Malaysia in their need than would be a treaty that was subject to all the delays, frustrations and ultimate ratifications that could well be involved.

The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) in presenting his statement yesterday quite rightly said that as a Commonwealth country we are a member of a family and we must become used to this method of negotiation by method of correspondence - if I may put it that way - rather than the formal negotiation of treaties. I support that statement which was made by the Prime Minister and read in the Senate by the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir William Spooner). At the same time I express my regret that the Opposition has not seen its duty to adopt the remarks or to give a clear indication of where it stands on the matter.

I agree with Senator Branson who mentioned the importance of Malaysia to Australia. If honorable senators look at a map they will see that Malaysia is, as Senator Branson said, right in the middle of a necklace standing between us and Communist China. As a member of a parliamentary delegation I recently visited six countries in South-East Asia. As soon as I arrived in each country I learnt that their main fear was mainland China. Burma really fears mainland China, although at the moment the Burmese believe that they are getting on quite well with this huge country. Thailand, of course, is very much in fear of China and of subversion from that country. In Malaya and Singapore an elaborate civilian security system had been set up. We learnt something about that and found that the main occupation of that security force was to see that there was no Communist infiltration from China by migrants and others. As Senator O’Byrne illustrated, in Indonesia the great fear is China. Some of the young hot-heads in Bandung took the law into their own hands a few months ago and did considerable damage to Chinese property. The people in the Philippines have their eyes cast in the same direction. In the area from Indonesia around to Burma, with Malaya in the centre, mainland China is the main cause for concern at the moment.

Any stability that comes to this area is of tremendous importance to Australia. Stability can be achieved by raising the standard of living or by imposing a check on subversion. It can be achieved also by providing for co-ordinated defence in the event of an overt act of war coming from the north. Concord with Malaysia, which has been under discussion to-day, is of tremendous importance to our welfare in Australia.

No doubt it would be of interest to the Senate to know what I, as a member of the parliamentary delegation, found in Malaysia. The delegation was able to visit only two segments of the new Federation - Malaya itself and Singapore - but T feel sure that my friend Senator Maher who was with me will agree on the amount of enlightenment that we found among the people in Malaya. We were able to compare conditions there with those prevailing in some other Asian countries that we had recently visited. In Malaya we found a splendid system of roads and traffic. There was a magnificent new university for which, I am proud to say, Australia helped to provide some equipment. We found a brand new parliamentary building going up to eight or ten stories. It is hoped that the new Malaysian Parliament will meet in that building. But what is more important is the economic progress of rural development. We found an enlightened land settlement scheme which provides farmland and rubber tree land for landless people. Moreover, we found industry organizing in the most enlightened way with the help of some of the larger Australian industrial concerns. We discovered that, consequently, the standard of living in Malaya was as high as the standard anywhere else in Asia.

It appeared to be the aim to lift the standard of living, but it was not possible to do anything notable in that direction while there was subversion in the country. That is why we found that the work of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Army was highly praised by all sectors of the community with which we came in contact, whether they were under-privileged people, top executives of companies or leaders of the government. It appears that Australia, in conjunction with the United Kingdom and New Zealand, did a remarkably fine job in providing the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. Consequently, it has always been a matter of great regret fo me - and it was so while I was in Malaya - to know that approximately half of the members of this Parliament are pledged against helping, reinforcing or in any way supporting that strategic reserve. However, as the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr. Calwell) said yesterday, that part of the Labour Party’s policy has been abandoned and a new policy, which he took some pains to explain to the House of Representatives, has been substituted for it. But neither the explanation given by Mr. Calwell nor that given in the Senate to-day has made the position as clear as it should be in this important moment of our history.

T’-‘c importance of security in the area of Malaya is this: If there is no security, the little people - the workers in the rubber plantations, the small miners in the tin mines and the growers of rice - simply cannot go about their business. What really matters is not the number of them who are killed by insurgents but the complete disorganization of the welfare of 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 industrious people. The great contribution that the Royal Australian Air Force and Australian troops have rendered to Malaya has been to enable these people to get about their gainful work and live normal family lives. That factor has been recognized in Malaya.

I am very proud that the Australian Government did not go into a lot of legalism at the birth of Malaysia. A very enlightened letter was written on 17th Sepember, 1963. Remember, Malaysia came into existence on 16th September. It would do the Senate good to listen for a moment to the reply which was given by the Malaysian authorities on 18th September to the Australian High Commissioner’s letter of the 17th September. I shall read the reply of the Prime Minister of Malaya directed to our High Commissioner, Mr. Critchley -

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 17th September 1963 concerning the presence of Australian forces in the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on external defence and mutual assistance the terms of which are as follows: -

Then follows a quotation of the terms contained in the letter that Mr. Critchley wrote to the Tunku on 17th September in which Mr. Critchley stated -

I have the honour to refer to my letter to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya dated 24th March 1959 and his reply of 21st April 1959 concerning the presence of Australian forces in the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve under the Agreement on external defence and mutual assistance between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on 12th October 1957.

The governments of the United Kingdom, Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore, have agreed by Article VI of an Agreement concluded on 9th July, 1963, on the extension to all the territories of Malaysia of the 1957 Agreement. The Government of Australia accordingly regards its association with the Agreement as henceforth applying to Malaysia.

I should be grateful if you would confirm that this is your understanding of the position.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia then stated -

In reply I confirm that your letter correctly stales the understanding between our two Governments of the position.

Within a matter of 4S hours the whole position was negotiated as it had been before, despite the fact that there were new parties to the agreement. 1 believe that the Australian Government acted expeditiously because at this point of time it is most important for the security of, and continued production in, Malaya that the whole matter should not be delayed, as might happen if the proposal made by Mr. Calwell were accepted. What interests me in that connexion is what sort of treaty the Opposition would requite. Where would such a treaty be different from the present arrangement? That is not at all clear. The present arrangement gives the Australian Government complete control of the activities of its air force and troops. From my observations, the Australian command at Butterworth seems to be in complete control now. It has under it elements from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The Prime Minister made the position very clear in his statement when he said -

But for the benefit of all concerned, honorable members would not wish me to create or permit any ambiguity about Australia’s position in relation to Malaysia. I therefore, after close deliberation by the Cabinet, and on its behalf, inform the House that we are resolved, and have so informed the Government of Malaysia, and the Governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand and others concerned, that if, in the circumstances that now exist, and which may continue for a long time, there occurs, in relation to Malaysia or any of its constituent States, armed invasion or subversive activity - supported or directed or inspired from outside Malaysia - we shall to the best of our powers and by such means as shall be agreed upon with the Government of Malaysia- and this is important- add our military assistance to the efforts of Malaysia and the United Kingdom in the defence of Malaysia’s territorial integrity and political independence.

That is something that the Malaysian Government will fully understand. We are adding our military assistance to its efforts and the efforts of the United Kingdom. In doing that, we are not showing ourselves as aggressors in any way. We are prepared to add our assistance to keep the economy and the security of that nation on the upgrade. I think that what Australia did in the letter of 17th September, one day after Malaysia was formed, and in the statement made by the Prime Minister on 26th September, only ten days after the birth of this new nation, was adequate action on the part of the Government. It has been so accepted by the principal press of New South Wales, whereas the press has been mildly critical, I submit to the Senate, of the attitude of the Opposition. The leading article of the “ Daily Telegraph “ of to-day’s date contains this paragraph -

The Prime Minister’s words make Mr. Calwell’* demand for a formal document - a treaty - seem a mere quibble.

It concludes by stating -

The Prime Minister has given a plain, blunt answer. Australian forces will fight at the side of British and Malaysian forces, if necessary, but will remain under the control of the Australian Government.

I do not think that there is too big a commitment for this country to make, in view of the importance of Malaysia in this necklace, as Senator O’Byrne has very colourfully put it. Consequently, I have no problem about supporting it. I express my regrets, however, that the Opposition has not given the arrangements its unqualified support. But, as Mr. Calwell said, the Opposition is changing its whole attitude to the Malay Peninsula. On 8th August he explained, quite frankly -

The Party’s plank on the withdrawal of troops from Malaya has been repealed. In its place is a new one which says that no Australian troops should be sent for service abroad except by clear, defined and open treaty, ratified by the Australian Parliament. We will gladly defend that principle whenever the next elections are held.

Yesterday, Mr. Calwell said -

It follows from that question and that answer that we are not advocating the withdrawal of Australian troops from the new State of Malaysia, but we are insisting that their continued presence in Malaysia shall be covered by a treaty clear, open and, if possible, mutual . . .

What is a treaty that is only mutual, if possible? Of course it is not a treaty. What Mr. Calwell says does not get us anywhere.

I contend that the Government has acted in the correct way. It has acted quickly, immediately after the birth of the nation, leaving that nation in no doubt as to where we stand. It has made a declaration to the world, and particularly to those people living in South-East Asia, which should increase their sense of security and enrich them economically. Knowing where we stand, they in turn will take courage and increase their present well-being.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– In this debate, one ought to be conscious of the problem we are discussing, which is one of the greatest problems that have faced Australia. It is true that a little over twenty years ago a nation, in military aggression, came close to our shores and Australia passed through a grave period. But since then there has been a tremendous change in Australia’s political relationship to its neighbours. I think that we would dismiss this problem far too lightly if the Government were to say only, “ Are you with us or against us in this declaration? “ and the Opposition were to say only, “We do not believe that the case has been presented clearly enough and we ask for certain safeguards”. That seems to me to represent the crux of to-day’s speeches. 1 believe that we have arrived at a period in history when the whole strategy in South-East Asia ought to be recast and our agreements with people in the area made clear.

In the past twenty years, we have seen the great nation of China emerge from a country in which there was civil war, famine and such economic distress that its people were hardly able to survive from starvation. It has grown into a nation of 700,000,000 people with an economy that enables it to challenge the great nations. China has growing strength. We do not agree with its method of government and way of life but the Chinese leaders believe that they have a mission to change the present methods of government throughout the Asian area to a Communist order. In recent years they have penetrated into many Asian areas. They have taken control of areas that are close to them, and they arc gradually expanding. To-day we are delighted to see the Malaysian countries come together, adopting a way of life wilh which we agree, and forming a buffer between us and the expansion of China. 1 believe that Indonesia, the great neighbour just to our north, has in its government a tremendous Communist influence’. Two years ago, its Foreign Minister said in the United Nations that

Indonesia welcomed Malaysia. For a time, that was Indonesia’s attitude. It welcomed the gathering together of the Malay people and the end of British colonialism in the area. But over recent months it has become clear that Indonesia no longer adopts that attitude and one has to consider why it has changed its views. I put it to the Senate that this very grave threat from the Communist area of Asia, particularly from China, is now impinging on the Indonesian people. That influence in Indonesia does not wish to allow the Malaysian area to function successfully. As a nation in this area, we face the problem of deciding our attitude towards Indonesia and Malaysia.

From the time when Great Britain helped India to get its own form’ of government I have admired the way in which it has found it possible to bring to these colonial peoples a degree of self-government. I have admired its ability gradually to surrender control and to train them to look after themselves. Great Britain is trying to do that in the Malaysian area. But, at the moment, there is something of a vacuum there. After all, it takes time for any nation to change from a way of life under colonial rule with little self-government to a way of life in which it is a nation with self-government. I feel that first of all we have to determine what the future holds for this area. What will happen? What is the next step that Indonesia will take? What is the next step that Malaysia, itself, will take? What is its approach to the people who say that they are its allies? That is the problem that we are debating to-day. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) presented a very brief statement to the Parliament. His parliamentary supporters said: “ Here is the beginning and the end of all our problems in Malaysia. The Prime Minister has made a statement that is not ambiguous. He knows where he is going. What are we going to do about it? “

First of all, I say that that is very poor reasoning. The Prime Minister’s statement is quite ambiguous. He said, amongst other things, that if in the circumstances that now exist certain things occur Australia will, by such means as shall be agreed upon with the Government of Malaysia, do certain things. Then the Government asks the Opposition: “ Are you with us or against us? Are you going to fight, or are you not? “ I say to the Government that that is not sufficient to risk involving the young men and women of Australia to a blood-bath without a proper definition of what we intend to do, why we intend to do it and how we intend to do it. We could make the affirmation that we think that what Malaysia is doing is right and that we are behind it. However, Indonesia could tear into Malaysia with China behind it. In those circumstances - quite different from those existing to-day - we feel that we should have another look at the situation. In different circumstances we would have to have another look at the whole problem.

Government supporters have asked the Opposition, “ Do you agree with what we are doing? “ We say: “ No. We do not agree because we should like to know exactly what you are doing.” The Government announced in 1955 that it was sending forces into this area solely for the strategic purpose of helping our allies in Seato and other pacts. The objective was to be on the spot if it were necessary to use Australian forces to back up agreements which we had made with other countries. Years afterwards, as an afterthought, the Prime Minister said: “We are there to assist in the overthrow of Communist aggression and Communist bandits.” The people of Australia have grown to believe that. We have never had a clear definition of why we sent out troops to that area. When the Prime Minister first stated that our forces were in the area in order to honour our treaty obligations I thought that that was why they were there. But I am still a bit confused as to his real reason for sending troops there because he has made several different announcements on the subject. This great nation of Australia should not commit its young people to fight and, if necessary, give their blood as they did in the last war, without clearly knowing why we arc going into a war. If the Government expects my sons to fight for this country surely it should tell them why it wants them to fight and leave it to them to decide whether they should accept that responsibility.

Mr. Acting Deputy President, the Opposition believes that in the changing situation in the Asian area - the area in which we live - we should re-examine our whole strategy. If we are to commit our troops to defend Malaysia against Indonesia or any other country we should have some agreement not only with Malaysia but also with our partners in pacts relating to the area. If we are to be committed (o put military forces into the area, where do we stand under Seato? Our allies in that pact have said to us: “ We are prepared to make a proper agreement with you. In the circumstances that we have laid down we are prepared to commit ourselves to assist you just as you are prepared to assist us.” Rather than make an ambiguous statement such as the Prime Minister has made on this occasion, we ought to say to the Malaysian people: “ We will do the best we can at the moment to help you but we want to know where we stand, where you stand and where our partners stand. So we believe that there should be a proper agreement between your federation and our own country.”

That is what the Opposition has put to the Senate to-day. We have not said that we feel that the Prime Minister is wrong. We have not said that we are opposed to Australian troops being in Malaya. We have not said that we are not going to fight in Malaya. All that we have clearly stated is that we want the Australian people, particularly our young people, to know our commitments. If we should have to sacrifice thousands of our young people again, we want them to know why they are going to fight and give their lives in these areas so that they will be satisfied that their sacrifice will be worth while. Australia has always met its commitments in years gone by and Opposition senators are proud that the Australian Labour Party has never let the Australian people down when a problem of defence had to be faced. We feel that we are again confronted with a situation in which we might have to say to our young people, “ It is desirable and imperative that you should go and fight for this country under certain circumstances “. But when they accept the challenge we want them to be conscious of the fact that they are fighting for a cause and we want them to know exactly what that cause is.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- Mr. Acting Deputy President, I think that in many ways this debate has got out of hand for reasons which I shall try to make clear to honorable senators in a moment. Before I embark on that particular aspect of the debate I think 1 should say, as a senator not responsible for government, that people in South-East Asia are making a grave mistake if they consider that the Australian people are fearful at the present moment. I do not think that the Australian people are fearful. I do not think that honorable senators are fearful about the situation which exists in South-East Asia at the present moment. I believe that we are apprehensive and that that is a proper state of mind for us to adopt. Having had discussions with South-East Asian people of various nationalities, I believe that, because they do not understand our language, they, like ourselves, fail to distinguish between apprehension and fear. I am apprehensive about events that are occurring in South-East Asia, and I know that Senator Arnold is in a similar state of mind. No man or woman who has an understanding of the responsibilities that devolve upon the members of the Parliament and others who are engaged in government can view the present situation In South-East Asia without a degree of apprehension. But although the people of Australia are apprehensive and are aware of what is occurring in South-East Asia, they are not manifesting any fear.

The Government would be abdicating its responsibiltiy if it did not state Australia’s attitude in clear and coherent terms, as did the Prime Minister. I believe his statement has been accepted almost universally by the people of Australia. I believe that the responsibility which we have accepted in South-East Asia will be discharged resolutely by the people of Australia, not least by members of the Government supported by the Parliament as a whole. But the course which this debate has taken may cause some confusion in the minds of the people of South-East Asia who do not draw the distinctions that I mentioned earlier, lt may cause them to believe that there is a lack of resolution on the part of the Australian people in assuming the responsibility that the Prime Minister has said we will accept.

The responsibilities which we have accepted in South-East Asia cannot be laid at the door of this Government as though they were evil. Our responsibilities in the Far East had their genesis in 1947. The concept of a system of regional defence in this area was first postulated by Dr.

Evatt when he was the Commonwealth Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs. Oddly enough, in those days he assumed the same double burden that the present Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs has assumed. That policy of regional defence in South-East Asia, with some modifications, has been in operation ever since 1947. So the responsibility which we are now accepting in 1963 had its genesis during the term of office of an earlier government. I think it is only fair that that point should be made. If any doubt exists in the minds of honorable senators opposite, or indeed in the minds of honorable senators on this side of the chamber, let it be clearly understood that, as I have said, the present policy, with some modifications, has been in operation for sixteen years.

I am disturbed by the possibility that despite the firmness of the Government’s attitude and the general acceptance of that attitude by the people of Australia, some doubts may arise because of the qualifications that have been expressed by various Opposition senators. Some injustice might be done if I did not refer to the cynical remark of my friend, Senator Kennelly, about the possibility of an election in this country arising from this unfortunate situation in South-East Asia. I and many other honorable senators on this side of the chamber have had the honour of knowing the distinguished Prime Minister of Australia for many years. I believe that not one member of the Senate will suggest that the Prime Minister would abdicate his responsibility to the people of Australia by seeking to use these external circumstances as a reason for holding a general election. 1 hope that 1 have succeeded in removing any thought that the right honorable gentleman would do such a thing. If an election is held in the foreseeable future, I am sure it will be caused by other circumstances.

We must remove from our minds any doubt that, if our commitments in SouthEast Asia place a strain upon our defence structure, the people of Australia will resolutely bear the burden that is placed upon them. In saying that, I believe I am speaking for the great majority of the members of the Parliament. 1 now want to deal with the qualifications that have been expressed by Opposition speakers. I shall deal with them now briefly and later with the concurrence of the Senate, will return to them. There is no doubt in my mind that qualifications attach to the attitude of the Australian Labour Party to the Prime Minister’s statement. I hope these qualifcations were not introduced to abate in any way Senator Kennelly’s forthright declaration that it was the policy of the Australian Labour Party to leave Australian troops in South-East Asia to discharge the responsibilities which we have assumed and which must bear heavily upon them in the event of certain happenings in the area. I am satisfied that Senator Kennelly and Senator McKenna meant exactly what they said when they stated that they would offer no objection to Australian troops accepting the responsibility that is cast upon them as members of the strategic reserve in South-East Asia. Having said that, I should like an undertaking that the statement of those two senators binds the Australian Labour Party as a whole and that we shall not discover post facto that there are substantial reservations which have not been disclosed. If such reservations were found to exist, it would be a matter for deep regret. They would cause mc great worry.

I accept without reserve the unequivocal statement of Senator Kennelly and Senator McKenna that they intend to see that Australian troops remain in South-East Asia. I assume that these troops will remain in South-East Asia to fulfill the duty with which they are charged in the terms of the Prime Minister’s statement - that they will discharge, without any qualification whatever, the responsibilities that are placed upon them by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. I shall leave that matter for the moment, but I shall come back to it later because I think there is a misunderstanding in the minds of many honorable senators, and not least in the minds of the honorable senators opposite, about what is meant by a reserve. The position must be clearly understood. Unfortunately, when we come to deal with matters of this nature three languages are used. There is the language with which we communicate with each other, the normal method of conversation and debate. There is the language of diplomacy, and there is the language of war. When we are speaking of a strategic reserve we are speaking, not in a diplomatic sense or in the normal terms of communication that we use in conversation, but in a technical, military sense.

In a technical, military sense a reserve has a meaning which, I suggest, is different from that which it has in debate and in normal conversation. In the military sense, a reserve is a force in being which is not disposed for any particular purpose, except that it may be used in circumstances and according to contingencies which cannot be foreseen. We have a strategic reserve, or military forces which arc a part of a strategic reserve, in South-East Asia, and we train and equip it, for the specific purpose of dealing with contingencies that cannot be foreseen. Since the contingencies in which the reserve may be used cannot be foreseen, it seems to me that it is not proper to say that the purposes of the reserve should be encompassed in an agreement. Therefore, when we speak of the Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve in Malaysia we are speaking of a force which may properly be used not only to defend Malaysia from external aggression, or to oppose internal subversive forces, but in the final analysis in the defence of Australia. I think that must be made clear.

It is said that it is necessary and proper that there should be a treaty, and that the Labour Party will demand a treaty. 1 suggest that, in having a treaty which is publicly negotiated and publicly exposed in the Parliament, certain people would be forewarned of the reason for which the reserve was established. That would be the result if it were said, “ We intend to use the reserve in this way under these conditions “, and if the conditions could be turned up in a reference library by anybody who wished to do so. In reality, therefore, the Labour Party is asking that we should openly disclose, to the very people to whom it is not proper to disclose it, the purposes for which the reserve is to be used. On that ground alone I suggest that a treaty is not a proper instrument in which to state the conditions under which a reserve should be used. As my colleague, Senator Mattner, says, it would destroy the effect of the reserve.

It has been claimed, of course, that as a people, as a Parliament, as a government and as a Commonwealth we have negotiated other treaties in relation to defence responsibilities. By way of illustration, reference has been made to the Anzus pact. It has been said that New Zealand is currently a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, as we are, and that we have an agreement with New Zealand; therefore, we should have an agreement with Malaysia. We have an agreement with New Zealand in the Anzus pact because in that pact we are associated with the United States of America, which is a foreign country. It is proper in those circumstances that we should have an international agreement, but if honorable senators care to refer to the treaty, as they may if they go to the Library, they will discover that it is composed of four simple clauses in the most general terms. The real capacity of the Anzus pact lies in the aid, comfort and succour which Australia may receive in relation to its defence problems under a series of annexures which properly are not disclosed and which refer to arrangements between the Governments of the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

Senator McKenna said, in condemning the attitude, behaviour and methods of the present Government in relation to Malaysia that we have an agreement with the United Kingdom regarding the Woomera rocket range. It also is true that in this respect we have an agreement in part with the United States, and with France, Belgium, Italy and Germany. But no one in his senses would claim that the Woomera rocket range was a part of the defensive structure of Australia. It certainly has a defence overtone because it is a range where missiles of one kind or another may be tested. It is used - and we hope that it will be used in this way substantially in the future - for the production of satellites for communication purposes. Therefore, the Woomera rocket range has only a fleeting connexion with defence. In truth, the agreement on the use of Woomera relates to the use of certain land.

I admit that we have an agreement with the United States concerning the construction of the naval communication station at North West Cape. It is proper that there should be an agreement with a foreign country. I accept entirely the Prime

Minister’s statement that in such circumstances we should not have written agreements with our sister members of the Commonwealth of Nations because we must retain flexibility of relations wi’.h people whom we have learned to trust in two wars and over many years. 1 should be very surprised if the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) were to suggest, for instance, that we should enter into an agreement with the United Kingdom on the use by United Kingdom ships of the Captain Cook graving dock in Sydney. That is analogous to the argument put forward by the Australian Labour Party.

Surely it is known and understood by members of the Labour Party, particularly Senator McKenna, that in these intimate matters which relate to defence it is not possible to have the kind of agreement that has been suggested. As a member of a previous Labour administration, he must know that in 1942, when this country was involved in the most dangerous situation of its existence, no treaty was entered into between the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America in relation to the defence of Australia. There was not even an exchange of letters, except in terms that Mr. John Curtin, the Prime Minister of the day, on 18th April, 1942 accepted a directive from the combined chiefs of staff in Washington. As a result of his concurrence, all the forces in Australia were placed at the disposal of General MacArthur, the commander-in-chief of the South-West Pacific area, with certain reservations in relation to training. In those circumstances, a previous government of the Labour philosophy, in the middle of a war, made no attempt to obtain an agreement with the United States on the disposal of Australian and American forces. Yet, it has now been suggested that we should make such an agreement. The Labour Party, in a period of danger, was not prepared to make an agreement for the reason that it is not proper that an agreement of the kind should be made. You cannot envisage all the circumstances in which the forces may be required.

Senator Willesee:

– That was in war-time.

Senator CORMACK:

– In Senator Arnold’s terms this is a period as near to war peril as we have been in since 1942. His words were that it is a period of grave peril. J suggest that in a period of grave peril, as is the present time, according to Senator Arnold, it is not fitting to sit down and arrive at treaty arrangements in which you spell out every single item of your intentions.

Senator O’Byrne:

– When is the war going to start?

Senator CORMACK:

– I have not said that a war is going to start. I am just saying that at this particular time, or at any other time, it would be a matter of the gravest concern to me, as a citizen of this country, if I though we were being required to spell out to the world every single detail of our defensive structure and of the disposal of our forces. That is what the Opposition is suggesting we should do.

The Australian Labour Party is suggesting that we spell out to the world every single detail of our defensive structure and of the disposal of this strategic reserve in Malaysia. It is a disposal of a reserve for an undisclosed purpose - undisclosed to our enemies or our possible enemies. The reserve has been placed in Malaysia fundamentally for the defence of Australia, and it is only incidental to the defence of Malaysia and internal subversion in Malaysia. Above all things, flexibility has to bc maintained.

It is not often that I am disappointed in a speech made by Senator McKenna. I have a great admiration for his debating ability. I have an admiration for the cold, analytical mind that he brings to bear on problems that are placed before us from time to time in the Senate, but I though’ this morning that perhaps his heart was not in the job. I felt rather that he was acting like a lawyer going through affidavits in a court and deciding that the case could not be tried because the affidavits were not in accordance with the rules of the court. I suggest, with no offence intended to Senator McKenna, that he rather picked his way across the floor of this cage without paying attention to the main problem.

Both Senator McKenna and Senator Kennelly suggested - and spent a great deal of time suggesting - that matters of high import have not been disclosed to the Parliament. Both honorable senators went carefully through the papers that were tabled by the Leader of the Government in relation to the disposal of the Common wealth Strategic Reserve in Malaysia, Senator Laught traversed that ground very thoroughly, and he made it perfectly clear that the documents tabled disclosed in clear and coherent terms the importance of the Australian clement of the reserve, the reason for its being there and the rights that it enjoys. However, a quality of apprehension enters into the matter because Senator Kennelly, for example, spent a long time this afternoon directing the attention of the Senate to the fact that certain annexes to the documents were not tabled. He brought to my mind at least, a feeling that perhaps there was some pretty secret, dirty, skulduggery going on that was not being disclosed to the Parliament - that information was being withheld. I interjected, honorable senators will remember, by saying that in those circumstances the Leader of the Opposition is entitled always to go to the Leader of the Government of the day and ask to be allowed to examine secret documents, under the normal terms and conditions, of course, that always exist - as Senator Kennelly well knows, having been a Minister of the Crown himself - between a Premier or a Prime Minister and a leader of the opposition. Surely it lay within the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition to discover what these secret documents were. There is no mystery.

Can these annexes be found? Well, they can be found. I have them here. Would the Senate like me to table this document? These are the annexes. The document bears the crown and the arms of Great Britain. It is called “ A Proposed Agreement on External Defence and Mutual Assistance between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Malaya, with annexures “. It is published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office at the prise of ls.

Not only has the Parliament, in relation to the activities of our reserve in Malaysia, had a free and frank disclosure made to it, but the Parliament is also informed as to the terms on which the reserve is there. It is there in agreement with the United Kingdom, and by the acknowledgment of the Government of Malaysia we enjoy all the rights that are enjoyed in South-East Asia by the United Kingdom Government. Also there are available to us the annexes. although great play has been made in this Parliament of the secrecy alleged to have been employed to withhold these documents from us.

I feel that I should not labour this matter too much, except to repeat that I said when I began. I am sure that every man and woman in this Parliament is resolutely determined that the safety of South-East Asia and Australia will be protected by the Commonwealth Government and the people and the Parliament of Australia, accepting this just obligation which we owe to the emerging people of South-East Asia. I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.42 to 8 p.m.

page 889

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1963-64

In committee: Consideration resumed from 25th September (vide page 841).

Proposed expenditure - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization - Capital Works and Services, £1,806,000- noted.

Department of Customs and Excise

Proposed expenditure, £6,029,000.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- The committee is now to discuss the proposed expenditure of the Department of Customs and Excise. An examination of the figures for the coming year reveals that this department is mainly an administrative one. It is of great interest to me that a department administering such a wide range of very important revenue-producing activities, with a large staff and administrative costs of £5,183,700, should have so little for the Opposition to criticize. I would go so far as to say that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) has acquitted himself with a certain amount of basic ability and with great diplomacy. lt could be said that this department is second only to the Taxation Branch of the Treasury as a revenue producer.

It is of interest to compare the revenue and expenditure of this department with the corresponding figures for the Taxation Branch. The figures seem to indicate that in the Department of Customs and Excise we receive a better return on our investment than we do from the Taxation Branch. From the sparse details that we are given it is difficult to see how the department is able to perform this amazing economic feat.

In an endeavour to find some breach in the Ministers defences I have gone to the most critical report - the report of the Auditor-General upon die Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure. In that document the Auditor-General has compared the revenue of the Department of Customs and Excise for the years 1962-63 and 1961-62. I direct the attention of honorable senators to page 54 of that report where it is revealed that the revenue from customs was £85,201,166 for 1961-62 and £105,069,570 for 1962-63, an increase of £19,868,404. Then we find that from excise the revenue was £265,607,203 in 1961-62 and £274,375.384 in 1962-63, an increase of £8,768,181. For miscellaneous items, in 1961-62 the revenue was £407,036, compared with £437,353 last year, an increase of £30,317.

The total collection by the department last year was £379,882,307. The AuditorGeneral reported -

The increase of £19,868,404 is mainly due to the higher level of imports recorded during the year. This resulted in increases in receipts of duly generally and particularly in respect of me:aIs metal manufactures and machinery and yarns, textiles and apparel.

It is perhaps of more than passing interest that certain former activities of the Department of Customs and Excise are now within the administration of the Department of Trade. I refer to tariff policy and other matters that have been taken over by that department.

I should like the Minister to inform the committee whether consideration has been given to a new approach to the collection of smaller items of customs and excise revenue along the same lines as those which have been followed in the matter of income tax. The lower limit of income upon which income tax must be paid has been lifted from £105 to £209. One reason given for that is that the cost of handling the numerous taxation returns, requiring the services of fairly well trained clerks and other taxation officials, made the collection of the small amount of tax involved a losing proposition. It is quite possible that a similar situation could exist in collections of customs and excise. It may be necessary for the Minister to review departmental activities to see whether in some sections the cost of collection, documentation and other time-wasting processes can be eliminated. I mention this not only with a view to reducing the difficulties that are imposed on individuals dealing with government departments through their having to make out various forms and comply with regulations, but also with a view to reducing the work of the department and adding to Consolidated Revenue. The estimates of customs and excise receipts for the year ending 30th June, 1964, cover a range of items such as foodstuffs of animal origin and of vegetable origin, spirituous and alcoholic liquors, tobacco, cigars and cigarettes; animal substances; vegetable substances and fibres; yarns, textiles and apparel; oils, fats and waxes; pigments, paints and varnishes; rocks and minerals and many other items. During the past year there has been a considerable increase in customs revenue from these sources. This has necessitated, according to the annual report of the Auditor-General and the summary that is given with the estimates, an increase in the staff of the Department of Customs and Excise. Salaries and payments in the nature of salary for 1963-64 are estimated to total £4,444,800 compared with expenditure last year of £4,032,297. That means an increase in expenditure on salaries and allowances of approximately £412,000 in an increase of about £461,000 in total administrative expenses. On a proportionate basis, this is higher than the figures for other revenue-collecting departments.

This could be related to a question I asked the Minister. I wanted to know whether some fields of revenue collection through customs and excise could be reviewed to ascertain whether we are not setting up within the Department of Customs and Excise what might be termed losing propositions.

I should like to ask the Minister about recent legislation on the payment of customs duty on petroleum and fuel. The respon sibility in regard to this has been placed in the hands of the companies concerned. I understand that when the relevant legislation was introduced the Minister assured the Senate that the department was quite confident a lot of money could be saved by putting the responsibility on the companies to present returns to the department. These returns were to show the total amount of fuel put through the companies’ tanks and the amount going out. It was stated that this would save the cost of employing permanent customs officers to watch the measurements.

Would the Minister inform me whether this has been the case? Have the predictions been borne out; because I have read that a refund of £7,035 was made by a contracting company following audit representations regarding short deliveries of aviation fuel to the Royal Australian Air Force. This short measurement was due to incorrect calibration of road tankers. The report of the Auditor-General stated -

Departmental investigations in other areas have been completed and resulted in the free delivery by the Company during 1962-63, of aviation fuel valued at £3,106 and £4,633 to the Departments of Air and the Navy respectively.

In 1961-62, free deliveries of aviation spirit valued at £2,154 were made to the R.A.A.F. at Darwin in satisfaction of short deliveries by incorrectly calibrated tankers. The Department of Customs and Excise has taken action to ensure the correctness of all measuring equipment used in the supply of petroleum products.

I hope the Minister will be able to assure the committee that this matter has been given serious consideration. An aura of suspicion is created when supposedly reputable oil companies supplying fuel to the defence forces are found to have delivered short measurement. In any man’s language, a man who gives short weight is not a good businessman because ultimately he is found out.

Senator Brown:

– He should be in gaol.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is true. In this case the taxpayer is robbed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator McKellar).Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I should like some information on the provision under Division No. 281, subdivision 3, item 03, for a flax fibre bounty. The appropriation last year was £20,000 and actual expenditure was £17,537. This year the appropriation is £3,100. Would the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty), tell me how the expenditure last year was broken up? I understand the bounty has been discontinued and I presume that the £3,100 is required for winding up this payment. As shown on page 169 of the schedule, provision is made for staff for the Department of Customs and Excise. There are three officers in the London office, comprising a customs representative and two investigation officers, and similar provision is made for the New York office, but there is only one Australian customs representative at the Tokyo office. In view of the substantial trade with Japan, I should like to know why there is not provision for an investigation officer at Tokyo. I should also like the Minister’s comment on the salaries paid to these overseas officers. The proposed provision for the customs representative in Tokyo is £2,386; it seems that some local allowances apply. The proposed provision for the officer in New York is £2,166 and for the officer in London £2,266. I should say that those amounts would be in Australian currency. Those seem to be extraordinarily low salaries for men in such important jobs. How are these men classified? If they seek reclassification and better allowances, by what medium do they proceed? I found overseas that Australia’s attitude to trade representatives and to men in positions of this nature, who are giving good service, was somewhat parsimonious.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– The proposed appropriation for the Department of Customs and Excise this year is £6,029,000. Last year the appropriation was £5,606,000 and the expenditure £5,539,000. The AuditorGeneral’s report shows that the customs, excise and miscellaneous duties collected by the department totalled £379,000,000 last year and £351,000,000 in the previous year. So, there was an increase of £28,000,000 last year.- It would appear that that extra amount was collected at an extra cost to the department of about £490,000. This department is one of our main tax collection organizations. The collection of an extra £28,000,000 at a cost of less than £500,000 seems to be quite economical.

Can the Minister explain the AuditorGeneral’s statement that there was an increase of £8,768,000 last year in duties on beer, cigars, cigarettes and motor spirit, and can he give a dissection of that increase? I am interested to learn how much extra was collected in excise on motor spirit because of the arrangement for distributing finance to the States for the development of roads.

We see provision, I suppose for the last time, for payment of flax fibre bounty; Senator Cooke mentioned this matter. This year the proposed provision is only £3,100, whereas last year it was £20,000. ls it a fact that the bounty on flax fibre is to be discontinued? If so, is this the last provision that we may expect to see for this purpose? In the past, particularly in time of war, when it was impossible to import flax fibre, terrific efforts were made to grow flax in Australia. The Department of Works erected flax mills in three States. Quite a few were erected in Queensland, several in South Australia and three in Western Australia. Of the twenty-odd mills constructed, to the best of my knowledge the last one to go out of existence will be the Blackwood Flax Fibre Mill, at Boyup Brook, in Western Australia. I should have thought that it would be advisable for the Government to endeavour to retain the nucleus of an industry which is so vital to Australia in war-time.

The Auditor-General’s report, at page 54, states that the system of control over petroleum products has been altered and that new procedures have been adopted by the Petroleum Products Branch. I know that it is the duty and responsibility of the department to collect excise on diesel fuel. We know that there is no tax on such fuel used in industry, particularly in primary industry and gold-mining. The tax is in fact, I think, collected only in respect of diesel fuel used in vehicles on roads. If a farmer has several tractors and one diesel truck, does he qualify for a complete remission of diesel fuel tax or must he pay tax on the fuel that he uses in the diesel truck that travels over formed roads outside the property?

What supervision is exercised to ascertain what fuel is being used in the various areas of Australia? Is there a check on a percentage basis or does the person who is using a truck have a responsibility to inform the department or the fuel company that a certain proportion of the fuel is used to operate a vehicle on public roads? How this phase’ of excise collections can be controlled has always intrigued me.

Also, I should like to have some information in regard to Division No. 281, subdivision 2, item 07, “ Hire, maintenance and operation of launches, and the supply of equipment- £7,800 “. In 1962-63 an allocation of £9,000 was made for this purpose, of which sum £7,223 was expended. The proposed appropriation appears to me to be a very small amount when we take into consideration the number of launches which I think are used by the department in its activities. I should like to have that point cleared up.

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

Senator Cooke and Senator Scott asked questions about the flax fibre bounty. On 30th June, 1960, the bounty was discontinued. A certain amount of flax had been harvested prior to that date. The Government has agreed to continue to pay the bounty in respect of that quantity as it is sold. The bounty is all being paid to the Blackwood Flax Co-operative Company Limited in Western Australia. The expenditure for 1962-63 was £17,537. The company still has a quantity of flax which is unsold. It is making a few sales now and again. The sum of £3,100 is all that is left in the kitty. As the applications come from the Blackwood company the bounty will continue to be paid until the fund is exhausted.

Senator Cooke raised the subject of departmental officers in Japan, New York, Washington and London. Their salaries are fixed by the Public Service Board. I direct the honorable senator’s attention to the allowances payable to these officers under the relevant section of Document A. Manufacturers in the countries concerned refer to these officers for information. Such officers also make investigations for the department concerning alleged dumping. They are on the spot to investigate the current domestic prices of the goods concerned. They perform all the duties involved in customs investigations in countries overseas. In Japan, these officers have been of great help to Japanese manufacturers. They inform the manufacturers of the procedures followed by the department. It is useful to the manufacturers to be able to get that information on the spot. The increase of about £400,000 in salaries which amounted to £4,032,297 in 1962-63 is almost entirely due to the recent increases in margins.

Senator O’Byrne and Senator Scott referred to petroleum fuel. As the Auditor-General has stated at page 54 of his report -

Audit reviews indicate that the new system is functioning satisfactorily.

It has saved us a good deal of money and eliminated the work of a number of officers who were previously stationed at depots. Records are kept by the oil companies and they are rigorously checked by flying gangs of the department. We find that the system has worked out as we anticipated in every respect. We are quite satisfied with it and the Auditor-General is satisfied.

In connexion with diesel fuel tax, the system under which we operate requires that ls. a gallon shall be chargeable on diesel fuel that is used in vehicles on public roads. To those who use it for other purposes, we issue a certificate which enables such persons to purchase fuel free of tax. Occasionally we find that some will use the certificate to buy fuel for use in a vehicle on public roads. But by careful checking we catch up with that, as a rule. I think the system is working very well. We have records which enable us to ascertain fairly accurately the amount of fuel used in a truck on a farm and on public roads. In this way, we see that there is no decrease in the revenue from fuel purchased for the truck. This is not an easy system to administer but we have kept the situation under pretty rigid control because we have a duty to see that the revenues of the country are maintained.

Senator O’Byrne:

asked whether we keep a pretty close check on departmental operations in order to ensure that none of them is unnecessary. For this purpose the department has set up an organization and methods committee and an operational works simplification system. We have managed to abolish a number of forms and procedures. The organization and methods committee is continually investigating phases of the work of the department. Amounts of revenue which are too small to be collected economically are waived. I am sorry that at this juncture I cannot give Senator Scott details of the excise revenue collected in respect of individual commodities such as beer, cigars, cigarettes and motor spirit. 1 shall instruct my officers to obtain that information and send it to him at the first opportunity.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I refer to the provision for salaries and allowances in Division No. 281. 1 raise this matter in order to seek information rather than in criticism of the department. I am intrigued by the figures which are set out in respect of the London office, the New York office and the Tokyo office. Provision has been made foi three officers in the London office. One is the Australian customs representative; he is to be paid £2,266. A sum of £2,166 is provided for the customs representative in the New York office, and the representative in the Tokyo office will receive £2,386. I should like the Minister to explain the difference.

Is the payment in each case based on the qualifications of the man concerned? Obviously the difference does not arise from the location of the officers, because in each case local allowances are payable. Provision has been made for a sum of £2,610 for one customs representative and two investigation officers in London. Local allowances for one customs representative and one investigation officer in New York will amount to £4,192. The staff in the Tokyo office consists of one customs representative, the proposed appropriation for local allowances in that case being £1,680.

The appropriation for child allowances is £450 for the London office, £1,614 for the New York office, and £810 for the Tokyo office. I do not know whether residence in New York is more conducive to reproduction than is residence in London or New York. I note that the total provision for salaries and allowances for the London office is approximately £600 less this year than it was last year. The provision for the New York office is about £30 greater, while that for the Tokyo office is approximately £300 more. Do these figures indicate that this year the volume of trade dealt with by these staffs will be greater in the case of Tokyo, much the same in the case of New York and less in the case of London?

I should like to ascertain whether our customs procedure is sufficiently publicized. I noted in yesterday’s issue of the “ Sydney Morning Herald” a report that a publication on Australian history had been produced in Japan because it was too costly to produce it in Australia. Customs duty is imposed on imported paper and ink, but it is not imposed on published books. There was a suggestion in this press article that a big Melbourne publishing firm was considering the transfer of its printing activities from Australia to Tokyo for this reason. This seems to indicate that an anomaly exists.

Some time ago I took up with the Minister the removal of imported motor car lights from the by-law category. I received a reply which indicated that, whereas before the removal of these items from the by-law category they attracted a duty of 7i per cent., they subsequently attracted a duty of 27 per cent. Whether the motor car industry was prepared to accept the Australian product was not a matter for decision by the Department of Customs and Excise, but an effort was made to protect the Australian industry by placing a higher duty on the imported article. That would seem to me to have been a satisfactory approach, because I am a great advocate of . protection for Australian industry. Later I informed the Minister that, despite the increase in the rate of duty, an importer of German lights was able to reduce the retail price by 25 per cent. The importer who was in touch with me thought that some exemption must have been granted to the importer of the German article. So far I have not received a reply to that query. I should be happy to have any information the Minister can give me. If he cannot supply that information now, perhaps my inquiry will hasten a reply.

I now wish to discuss plasterers’ trowels. Since its inception, the plastering industry has used either the American Disston trowel or the English Tyzack trowel. During the war when the importation of such articles was prohibited, I took an active interest in the production in South Australia of the Calvert trowel. Although the best Swedish saw steel was purchased, it was not possible to use a sufficiently fine gauge and at the same time keep the blade straight after rivetting it to the shank. To produce a satisfactory finish it was necessary to have what is described as a ten-rivet trowel. That was a trowel with a shank that extended the full twelve inches of the blade so that there would be flexibility. The best that Calverts could do was to produce a trowel which turned out a roughly finished job. It was not good for finishing work. The firm of Harvey Morris of Adelaide then came into the picture. It manufactured a trowel known as the “Trueline” which was of similar manufacture to the Calvert trowel. The steel shank was replaced by an alloy shank. The company found that more success could be achieved by putting the finished article on a magnetic grindstone which could cut it down to a finer gauge than the steel the Calvert company was using. Harvey Morris was thus able to produce a better article.

Although the company was producing a trowel which was better for concrete work and satisfactory for the first coat of cement or lime plaster, it was not and is not yet producing a trowel that a tradesman would use to achieve a finished job. When 1 speak of a tradesman, I mean a man who has pride in his workmanship. Therefore, whatever the cost, such a tradesman finds that he must purchase either a Tyzack or a Disston trowel if he wants to do a good job. The other trowel is satisfactory for first-coat work and for use by people putting down paths around the home. It is satisfactory for use by mediocre tradesmen who turn out work which is acceptable to people with no knowledge of good quality work, or the South Australian Housing Trust standard of work. But no tradesman who has pride in his work would use the trowel produced by Harvey Morris for finished work.

Plasterers have noticed that the price of Tyzack and Disston trowels has gone up by 10s. or 15s. for the reason, they are told, that customs duty has been imposed to protect the industry producing the “ Trueline “ trowel in Australia. I have some personal acquaintance with Harvey

Morris. In the past, I have done everything I could to promote the production and sale of the trowel that his company is manufacturing. I would agree with tha need for the imposition of customs duty if a trowel equivalent to the Swedish steel trowel was being produced in Australia, but there is simply not a suitable equivalent trowel being produced here. To any one who was unacquainted with the work of plasterers, the trowels being produced here would seem to present the same appearance, but a tradesman can tell a good trowel by its flexibility, by the ring of the steel, by the alloy from which the shank is cast and from the way in which the handle is set in. He would not use for finishing work the trowels being produced in Australia. Therefore, I ask the Minister to review the customs duty, that has been placed on the Disston and Tyzack trowels with a view to permitting tradesmen in Australia to avoid the excessive cost of purchasing suitable trowels, because as I have said, there is no trowel of equivalent quality being produced in Australia.

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

– 1 was interested in Senator Cavanagh’s remarks. First, in relation to the children’s allowance for the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise in New York and London, I inform him that the living away allowances in the various countries are fixed by the Public Service Board and bear relation to costs in the countries concerned. Naturally, in New York costs are higher than they are in many other places. Of course, the number of children an officer has affects the total amount of allowance that is paid. Some of the officers are more senior than others, so that there is a variation in salary on that account.

The honorable senator referred to the manufacture of motor car lights and the importation of lights from Germany. That matter is now being examined. One of the functions of our officers overseas is to help us with matters of this kind. I undertake to let the honorable senator have the relevant information as soon as I can, but of course the investigation will take a little time. The matter concerning plasterers* trowels to which he referred is one for the Tariff Board. If a manufacturer in Australia feels he has not sufficient protection, the Tariff Board is able to deal with the matter. Once the board has held an inquiry and fixed a rate of duty, the Department of Customs and Excise classifies it and collects the duty that is applicable. I point out that the by-law section refers to a suitably equivalent article. I take it that the point the honorable senator is making is that the trowel available is not suitably equivalent. I have not personally had the matter before me as yet, but as the honorable senator has raised it I shall have a look at it.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to Division No. 28 1 , sub-division 3, item 02, “ Customs Cooperation Council - Contribution, £9,700 “. Would the Minister be good enough to tell me the function of this body. I also wish to refer to the schedule of salaries and allowances. I note that the Collector of Customs in New South Wales receives a salary of £4,308, and that the Collectors of Customs in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania receive smaller salaries, the lowest being that of the Collector of Customs in Tasmania, who receives £2,596. Can the Minister state the reason for the difference in salary?

I wish to congratulate the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise for the way in which they carry out their duties in examining the luggage of people returning from overseas. I was amazed by their efficiency when I travelled from Australia on the liner “ Iberia “. I was travelling with a friend who said to me: “ You do not want to worry about the customs officers in Australia because you will not get in anything that you are not allowed to bring in “. He went on to say: “ This is my second or third trip away. The last time, when I was in America. I bought a setting of mammoth white turkey eggs which are not allowed into Australia. I thought I would make a start in the turkey business in Australia.” He was of She opinion that he could get the eggs into Australia without being detected by the customs authorities. He did not mention the matter to anybody. He arrived in Sydney, and the customs officers said, We are not interested in your cases. Will you just tell us the one in which the eggs are? “ He told me that he gave them the eggs, and that the case in which he had the eggs was the only one that the customs officers looked at.

It is the duty of customs officers in all countries to see that goods which are not allowed in are excluded. I was impressed by the efficient manner in which tourists are treated when they arrive in Australia and the. efficient manner in which I and my wife were treated when we returned to this country. The customs officers were very polite, courteous and efficient, and I wish to congratulate them.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

.- Under Division No. 281- Administrative, I wish to refer to the subject of book censorship, which comes under the control of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty). Before I proceed with my remarks on his subject let me say that so far as I am aware the report of the Department of Customs and Excise for 1962-63 has not yet been tabled in the Parliament. Without this report it is rather difficult for honorable senators to scrutinize with particularity the estimates under discussion. When we were discussing the estimates for the Department of the Navy last evening we had the annual report of the department and some explanatory notes which facilitated our dealing with the estimates. I hope the Minister will pay heed to my remarks, because the annual report of the department would assist honorable senators to have a better understanding and appreciation of the estimates of his department.

In dealing with book censorship I wish to refer to the 1961-62 annual report of the Department of Customs and Excise. On page 89 of the report it is disclosed that from the years 1957 to 1962 a number of publications were reviewed in the central office and a number of such publications were prohibited. In that last year for which a report is available - 1961-62 - 799 publications were reviewed and 602 were rejected for import. That seems to be a large percentage of books rejected. In round figures it represents 73 per cent, of the total number of books reviewed in the central office. I should like to know what is meant by the phrase, “ Publications reviewed in central office “. I ask that, because of the large percentage of rejections.

I should like to know also who undertakes the work of literary censorship, and 1 am relating my remarks for the time being to the publications reviewed as stated on page 89 of the 1961-62 annual report of the department. Not only would I like to know who performs the work, I would also like to know under which section of the act these publications are prohibited. Is there any right of appeal? If the Minister turns his attention to page 89 of the 1961-62 report he will see that the number of prohibited publications rose astronomically between the years 1957-58 and 1961-62. I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the rejection of these publications.

I wish to refer to a question asked by mc, and the answer given by the Minister on 11th September of this year. I asked the Minister -

How many books now remain on the banned list for importation because of censorship?

The Minister in his reply said that 173 titles had been gazetted as prohibited imports and that none of those books was written by an Australian author who had published his works in the first instance overseas and then sought to have them imported into this country. I should like to know also - and I am sure all of my colleagues on this side of the chamber would like to know - who comprises the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board and what procedure is involved in the banning of these books. In view of the comparatively large number of 173 books that have been banned, would the Minister tell me whether they were banned because of some obscenity contained in them in the opinion of the board or of the Minister, whether it was because of some blasphemous utterance appearing in the books or whether it was because of some seditious passage? Having regard to the action that can be taken by the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board and/ or the Minister, will the Minister inform me what right of appeal a publisher has against the banninng of a book?

This is a very important matter, having regard to the interests and welfare of Australians, because surely Australians are entitled to read material that is allowed to be read by people in other parts of the world. We have learned, not only from newspapers but also by way of questions and answers in this chamber and in another place from time to time, of the ban that has been imposed on Lawrence’s “ Lady Chatterley’s Lover “ and on Miller’s “Tropic of Cancer” and “Tropic of Capricorn”. Still speaking to this section of the department’s estimates I add that a well-known American author and prominent negro citizen of the United States, James Baldwin, wrote a book titled “ Another Country “. He has been described in some quarters as the greatest living negro writer in the world. Indeed, “ Time “ magazine on 17th May of this year featured a portrait of him on its front cover. Not only did it feature him on the front cover, but it also gave prominence on pages-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator McClelland, I direct your attention to the fact that we are dealing with the estimates, and not with the policy, of the Department of Customs and Excise.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Dealing with the estimates, I am wanting to know why this book, among others, has been banned.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! You seem to be getting away from the estimates. You must connect your remarks with the estimates.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I can appreciate that some books, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board and in the opinion of the Minister, might have to be banned for specific reasons, but the book to which I have referred has been said, as is reported in the literary supplement of the London “Times”-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator, you are still dealing with the policy of tho Department of Customs and Excise. Get back to the estimates.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– What I am pointing out, Mr. Chairman, is that Australia, apart from Eire, is the only country where this book is not entitled to be read and appreciated.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! What has that to do with the estimates? Senator, connect your remarks with the estimates.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– 1 believe this matter has to do with the estimates.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I believe it has not. Again I say, connect your remarks with the estimates.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I should like the Minister to outline the manner in which these books are banned and to say whether it is not a fact that Australia, apart from Eire, has imposed the largest number of bans on publications. On this matter-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator McClelland, I have already ruled that you must refer to the estimates and you are disregarding my ruling.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– On this particular topic perhaps the Minister can reply to my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I shall not allow the Minister to answer. The honorable senator will connect his remarks with the estimates under discussion.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I thought the matter of censorship of publications entering Australia came under the administration of the Minister for Customs and Excise, and could be dealt with in this debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– So far as it refers to these estimates, yes.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I am relating my remarks on the subject of book censorship to what I believe is the appropriate vote, that is, Division No. 281, which deals with the administration of the department. 1 understand that the Literature Censorship Board is under the control of the Department of Customs and Excise. Because not only the Literature Censorship Board but also the Minister, of their own volition, can ban the importation of books, I believe this question is very pertinent to the estimates under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Provided that you relate your remarks to these estimates. At the moment you are dealing with the policy of the Department of Customs and Excise. For the last time, I ask you to connect your remarks with the relevant estimates.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I am questioning the amount of money proposed to be voted under Division No. 281 - Administrative, having regard to the amount that might be spent on the Literature Censorship Board. In that regard I wish to refer to the Minister a letter that was written to me by a prominent publisher. The letter states -

During . the early days of Senator Henty’s administration of the Customs Department it seemed that a new and civilized era had taken place in Australian book censorship. He cleared up a number of anomalies and things looked immeasurably good. The whole literary world rallied round him and thought we were moving closer to the standards of Britain and moving away from the standards of Eire, the only other country in the world which bans more books than Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator, for the last time, will you connect your remarks to the estimates now before the committee?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I relate this to item 01, “Salaries and Allowances as per Schedule, page 169 “, and refer to the activities of the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You are not relating your remarks to the estimates. You are dealing with the policy of the department, which is a matter not now before the committee. We are considering the estimates.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

- Mr. Chairman, in attempting to relate my remarks-

The CHAIRMAN:

– You are not succeeding.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I am trying to suggest to the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that maladministration is involved in the censorship of publications. I feel that that is very pertinent to the estimates of this department. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, may I continue reading the letter from the publisher? I am sure that the Minister will appreciate its significance. The letter continues -

Slowly but surely, however, in the climate of Australia for these things, and because of the passive acceptance of a different standard for Australia than for Britain, we have slipped back again.

I ask the Minister to answer the following questions: What is the policy of the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board? What is the Minister’s policy on the banning of books? What right of appeal is open to a publisher who has had a book banned? How does the department administer this part of its function?

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

, - 1 believe

I have a note of most of the matters raised by the honorable senator. I should first like to refer to the report made to the annual collectors’ conference, to be held in October. This is not an annual report which is presented to Parliament but is an annual collectors’ report which will be considered next month when the annual collectors’ conference is held in Brisbane. I have never given any thought to having this report made available to the Senate, but I appreciate the honorable senator’s suggestion that this should be done in time for it to be considered with the estimates. The point is a good one. The report deals with the aspect that has been mentioned and, if it will be of benefit to honorable senators, I will see whether it can be supplied to them.

The honorable senator referred to page 89 of the annual report of the Department of Customs and Excise where there is a reference to publications reviewed in the central office. These publications are the trashy magazines, horror comics and paperback editions which are dealt with at departmental level. When these publications first come into a port an officer of the department reviews them and, if he is not satisfied with them, he sends them to central office. The magazines are then dealt with under item 22 of the second schedule, which refers to literature which, in the opinion of the Minister, unduly emphasizes sex, horror, violence or crime, or tends to deprave. I do not see all this rubbish; I delegate my power to the departmental officers. Of the 779 books of this type referred to by the honorable senator, 602 were prohibited.

I stress that these publications consist entirely of the type 1 have described; none have literary or artistic content. I make that differentiation quite clear to the committee because a book with literary or artistic content is dealt with in a different way. In this case we use regulation 4a, which was formerly item 7, of the customs regulations. This item refers to books that are blasphemous, indecent or obscene. Most of these books come through the ports of Sydney or Melbourne - the two biggest customs ports - where they are examined by customs officers. These officers have no authority to prohibit importation; this must be done by govern ment action. Prohibition of the importation of books has been carried out by every Commonwealth Government since federation. In the Constitution of the Commonwealth there is no provision for censorship, so every Commonwealth Government has, for this purpose, used the section of the Customs Act relating to prohibited imports. This section does not apply to publications produced within Australia. These books are considered by the various State authorities.

Each sovereign State has its own rights and its own method of dealing with such publications. The Commonwealth’s authority is limited to the control of imports. Books that have been referred to the central office by the officers at the various ports are examined by officers who, again, have no power to prohibit. After examining the publications they may release them, but if they consider that they are blasphemous, indecent or obscene, they must be forwarded to the Literature Censorship Board, which is a body set up to advise the Minister.

The honorable senator asked about the present membership of the board. The chairman is, and has been for many years, Mr. K. Binns, who was for many years National Librarian. The deputy chairman is Professor E. R. Bryan, of Duntroon. The members of the board are Dr. E. K. T. Koch-Emmery, of the Australian National University, and Mrs. C. L. Hewitt. The members of the board read the books and make individual reports on them. Then the chairman sends a combined report to the Minister who has the authority under the act to make a decision upon it. A decision is made, and if it is in favour of prohibition because of the literary or artistic content the work is prohibited under regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Of course, this decision can be challenged in a court. The importer has the right of appeal and an appeal censorship board of three is set up. The work is reviewed and a report made to the Minister. At that stage a final decision is made and the book is prohibited or not as may be decided. I stress however, that under regulation 4a the decision can be challenged.

The honorable senator referred to certain books. I have been Minister long enough to know that one can argue until

Doomsday over a matter of opinion about books, but we are not here to discuss opinions. Certain procedures are laid down in the act and the regulations, and the department has to administer them as faithfully as it can. That is done. The honorable senator may agree with some decisions and disagree with others but, as I have said, this involves a matter of opinion.

The honorable senator asked me about a list of prohibited books. The list previously included about 1,200 books but it has been reduced to 173. There was an accumulation over about 49 years, but the list has now been reviewed. I think Australia is the only country that publishes a list of such books for all to see, and I think that that is the proper course. At one time the list was secret, but it is secret no longer, lt is available for all to see and criticize, and I believe that criticism in this field is healthy. I would be the last to stifle criticism.

The honorable senator also referred to ti letter he had received. Many letters on this subject come to me, and I can assure the committee that they show without doubt that the great majority of the people accept the situation that has prevailed in Australia for many years. For every criticism that I get condemning the system - and I only administer it - we have dozens expressing the opposite view. Indeed, many say we are far too lenient.

Senator McClelland:

– And some would say you arc too severe.

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, but some say we are too lenient. We are trying to protect the majority of the people and I repeat that this whole matter largely involves opinion. This is a matter you could discuss for years without altering anybody’s opinion on it. I have held an opinion on trie matter, and I still hold it.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I thank the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) for the information he has given me, but he did not answer my question about the staff at the Tokyo office. There is one Australian customs representative there but no investigations officer. I do not know what duties investigations officers perform, but I presume they are intended to assist Australian trade. The volume of trade between Japan and Australia is considerable and it appears to me that an additional officer is required. I should also like some information from the Minister on the provision for buildings, furnishings and fittings. The proposed vote under Division No. 876 is £615,000.

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

– I am sorry I omitted to answer Senator Cooke on that point. We propose to make one addition to the staff at the Tokyo office by the appointment of one more customs officer. The amount involved is not in these estimates because a recommendation for an additional officer was made only this week. The Tokyo office is a new office which was opened only a few years ago, and the work has been gradually growing until we need an additional officer. I believe that the overseas offices are important. The provision for furnishings, fittings and other expenses to which the honorable senator has referred applies to the new customs house in Melbourne which is being built opposite the old customs house.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Under Division No. 281, at page 169 of the schedule, provision is made for various officers employed in administration, but there is no provision anywhere for the employment of interpreters. Under the immigration scheme large numbers of immigrants are arriving from Europe and when they reach various ports, particularly Fremantle, which is their first port of call, they have difficulty in going through the customs procedures. This is not the fault of the customs officers employed at Fremantle; but the customs officers are not trained in various languages and they are not able in all cases to assist migrants who want information. Has consideration been given to the employment of interpreters or some one with ability to inform these people of their obligations when they arrive in Australia? Migrants cannot be expected to know the requirements. They are not able to explain their position and the customs officer is not able to explain requirements to them. As the number of migrants is constantly being stepped up, will the Minister or the department give consideration to the employment of interpreters at various ports of entry and particularly at the port of first entry. Fremantle?

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– Not very long ago the police in Brisbane raided a certain block of flats and arrested some of the male persons whom they found there. The next day was a Sunday and “ Truth “ newspaper published photographs of some of the persons who were arrested. Later on, one of the number appeared before a magistrate’s court in Brisbane and was fined a fairly substantial amount for having marihuana in his possession. Marihuana is not the name of a lady, Mr. Temporary Chairman. You in your innocence may not know that. It is the name of a prohibited drug. In seeking leniency from the court, this gentleman stated that he had informed the police where they could contact those persons who were selling this drug in Sydney.

It appeared to me at the time that if the police could raid some flats in Brisbane and there find in full swing a party at which marihuana cigarettes were being enjoyed, that was evidence either that the drug was being manufactured in Australia or that it was being imported. If it is being manufactured here, there is nothing much that the Minister can do about it, because this would be very difficult to trace, but if the drug is being brought in by some organization this is very serious indeed. I do not want to labour the matter. Perhaps the Minister has some information about it.

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

– I shall reply first to Senator Cant. We have in the department officers who are qualified in certain languages. We use them for the purpose to which he has referred and where necessary - for instance, when we require a Chinese interpreter - we employ outside people who are qualified in the particular field. I agree with the honorable senator that a difficulty exists because many migrants have difficulty in understanding our customs publications and forms. We are now investigating the possibility of having these published in various languages so that we may give to each migrant, on the voyage out, an explanatory booklet in his own language. At one time we sent to Fremantle officers who travelled around the coast on the bigger migrant vessels and helped to clear passengers en route. This allowed a little more time to talk to migrants and to assist them. I think it is very important that they should be helped as much as possible. The reception that they get at the first port of call means much. We hold in our hands the reputation of Australia, as very often the first contact will determine a migrant’s opinion of Australia and its people. j

Senator Benn referred to marihuana cigarettes. There is, of course, a constant ! battle, sometimes described as the battle ; between the revenue men and the smugglers, j Of course, the trade would not go on if a j certain amount of the material did not get ; through. With a long coastline, a large number of ports, and a limited staff, complete exclusion is almost impossible. I think that we have kept the position well in check.

I was interested to learn that the Victorian police commissioner, who returned only the day before yesterday from a conference of 72 nations in Europe, said, in relation to this drug and other narcotics, that in his opinion Australia was the freest country in the world. That does not mean that we shall let up on this continuous searching. It is a task that we must carry out, because this is a dreadful trade and it must be stopped. We are well aware of the dangers. We are getting assistance from customs organizations all over the world and we are not going to let up.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– The Minister says that Australia is one of the freest countries in the world. So it may be, in material things, but it is certainly not in things of the spirit. He said that his department handles the reputation of Australia. With regard to the administration of literary censorship, the department has handled it very badly indeed. I refer to Division No. 281 - Administrative, and to certain remarks made by the Minister. A statement he made a little while ago was very illuminating. Regulations made under the act, namely the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, permit the prohibition of the importation of literature which by words or pictures, or partly b’y words and partly by pictures, in the opinion of the Minister unduly emphasizes matters of sex, horror and so on. The Minister has admitted to this committee that a great number of publications coming into this country have been prohibited under those regulations although they were never read by him. How could the Minister form an opinion on a publication which was not read by him? Although the regulations have been made under the act, and concurred in by the Parliament because it was believed that only publications which the Minister himself was satisfied were contrary to the regulations would be prohibited, the Minister has nevertheless allowed publications to bc prohibited on the say-so of the clerks in his department. So the matter is no longer decided on the opinion of the Minister but on that of some clerk in the department. This is a matter of administration and of maladministration. It was never intended in this country that the freedom of the people to import books and other material which are read in other countries should depend not on the opinion of a Minister but on the opinion of some clerk in the Department of Customs and Excise. Mr. Temporary Chairman, this is typical of the kind of administration that has been going on in this country during the term of office of the Minister. Leaving aside matters of censorship, I do not criticize his administration of his department. But in these matters he certainly has not enhanced the reputation of Australia. Australia can be bracketed with such countries as China, Ireland, Spain and South Africa which perhaps most consistently impose censorship of this type.

Senator Henty:

– Also Canada and New Zealand.

Senator MURPHY:

– If the Minister likes to add other countries, so much the worse for them. Apparently, they have Ministers as bad as he, himself, is. lt is notable that countries in which this kind of censorship is practised are among the most repressive countries in the world.

Senator Mattner:

– What nonsense!

Senator MURPHY:

- Senator Mattner should not laugh at what 1 am saying because it is a very tragic thing that in a young country such as this we should have this kind of thought control. I think the Minister genuinely tries to do his best in his administration of the department, but I think that in this respect he is failing quite signally. It is true, as he has said, that he has reduced the number of prohibited publications from about 1,200 to about 173. Does not the lesson strike home that there has been no disaster in this country as the result of that reduction? This is the great lesson which should be learned by every one. When you censor and prohibit you do not really gain anything. There has been no reduction in our standard of morals since the list was reduced. Nothing wrong has happened as a result. I venture to say that no disaster would happen in the community if the other 173 books were taken off the list of banned publications. I do not know. No one can know.

It is not true, as the Minister has said, that the position is satisfactory because a list of banned books is published in the “ Gazette “ and such publication gives opportunities for public criticism. How can there be public criticism of the books on the banned list if no one can read them? It is nonsense to say that there is fair criticism and that everything is above board because a list is published. The community does not know what has been prohibited. It does not know the criteria on which action has been taken. Until the books have been released they do not see them. Then they agree that they should not have been prohibited. But they cannot know the contents or engage in fair public criticism simply because a list has been published. I suppose that there is something to be said for the publication of such a list, but it is nonsense to say that there is fair and free public criticism because a list is published in the “Gazette”. I should like the Minister to answer this. He said that he acts on the advice of the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board. That is not true, of course.

A notable example was mentioned in the Senate this evening - that of “ Lady Chatterley’s Lover “. I do not know whether it is a good book or a bad book. I have read what has been said about it by some others. I have read the book. 1 did not think a great deal of it. I do not know why it has been banned. But it is interesting to observe that the Literature Censorship Board recommended quite some time ago that it be removed from the prohibited list. Why did not the Minister act on the advice of that body? It is a strange and ridiculous situation in which Australia has been placed. This is not merely a question of whether persons should be able to read smutty literature. It has been said by some very famous people - people who would be recognized, perhaps, as the greatest thinkers in recent times - that statutes that treat a smutty record as a serious danger to society may readily be converted into instruments for dangerous infringement of freedom of expression.

The danger in the “administration of regulations such as these is that the administration is conducted on grounds that are inconsistent and the regulations are incapable of being enforced except by arbitrary and capricious administration. Exactly that may be said of the history of censorship in our community in recent times. There has been arbitrary and capricious administration. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to accept the advice of those who say that if literature does exert a corrupting influence on young people the best counter-influence lies in education, parental guidance and the freedom to learn. Also, I should like to ask the Minister whether he would explain what delays exist in practice in the administration of the censorship of books. It is feared by many in the community that the delays which are brought about by the administration of this sterile Government are in themselves one of the most subtle and dangerous forms of censorship.

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

Mr. Temporary Chairman, I want to reply to Senator Murphy because, frankly, I have never heard such a lot of rot talked in all my life. This is a matter of opinion. Senator Murphy said that there should not be any censorship at all. He would like to abolish it.

Senator Murphy:

– I did not say that at all.

Senator HENTY:

– I did not interrupt the honorable senator when he was speaking, and he should not interrupt me.

Senator Murphy:

– I will interrupt you if you misquote me.

Senator HENTY:

– I listened to you and I will answer you. I have had a lot more experience in this game than you have. Although you are a Queen’s Counsel you are a new-comer in this place.

Senator Murphy:

– You have not learned anything.

Senator HENTY:

– Have I not? I made it quite clear when I was replying to Senator McClelland that I divided this matter into two sections. The section to which Senator Murphy referred a little while ago relates to trashy paper-back books, terror comics and horror comics. If he had any practical knowledge of administration, which he obviously has nol, he would not ask a Minister of the Crown to read all that rubbish. If a Minister did that he could do nothing else. The Customs Act provides for the delegation of ministerial power as does the Acts Interpretation Act. I delegate my powers in the field of trashy paper-back comics, terror comics and that sort of rubbish to the departmental officers. I have always said that I have done that. I have made it quite clear that if, in the opinion of the chairman of the Literature Censorship Board, a book has artistic or literary merit, it must go to the board. That decision is made under regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, which deals with blasphemous, indecent or obscene literature that is challengeable.

The honorable senator has expressed the opinion that I as the Minister for Customs and Excise act capriciously and arbitrarily. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion; but I disagree with him, and so do many others. In administering this department I have freed it of a lot of red tape. The honorable senator referred to individual books and asked me whether I had ever acted outside the advice of the Commonwealth Literature Censorship Board. We have an appeal board, and sometimes the appeal board does not agree with the Literature Censorship Board. In that case I have the task of taking the advice of one or the other.

In only one instance have I heard it argued that there should be no censorship. All that the honorable senator is arguing about it the degree of censorship that is

Imposed. He says that there is too much censorship; plenty of other people say that there is not enough. Of course, he is quite entitled to his opinion. I have taken another step in this matter but the honorable senator, being a newcomer to this place, would not know what has been done. So that members of the Parliament may offer informed criticism, I have made all these books available in the Library. The honorable senator may read them and inform himself if he so desires and then come in here and criticize.

Senator Murphy:

– But that does not include the public.

Senator HENTY:

– No, but I should think that you have been elected as a trustee of the public. You have not the right to come in here and voice an opinion when you have not even taken the steps that arc available to you to inform yourself. I have never heard such nonsensical theory in all my life. The administration of this matter is not easy. In no circumstances do I discharge my responsibility arbitrarily or capriciously.

Senator Murphy:

– Why do you not turn it over to somebody else if it is too hard for you?

Senator HENTY:

– How lovely, how easy it is to shed one’s responsibilities! Parliament has laid down who is to exercise this administration. All the time that Labour was in office this was the kind of administration that operated. This is the kind of administration that is now in operation, except that it is much freer than it was in the past. The honorable senator is quite entitled to disagree with me. There are many who would disagree with him, and I assure him that I disagree most vehemently. He has a duty to inform himself about these matters. Being a newcomer, I suppose he has not yet caught up with the situation. So perhaps I should not press the matter too far.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I appreciate the Minister’s reply to my query about interpreters in the Department of Customs and Excise, particularly at the first port of call in Australia, and the importance of having somebody to assist people who enter Australia for the first time. It is known to me that the department brings interpreters to Fremantle from the Holden migrant centre, which is situated at Northam, approximately 60 miles out of Perth, to assist migrants who have language difficulties. The Minister for Immigration would be aware, even if the Minister for Customs and Excise is not, that these people are made available at the customs office only when government-sponsored migrants arrive. They are not available upon the arrival of migrants who came out under the assisted passage scheme. Fremantle is the first place of entry to Australia for these people. I should like the Minister to tell me, if possible, the number of officers of the Department of Customs and Excise employed at Fremantle who are able to speak various languages, and the number of languages they can speak.

I would like the Minister to explain another matter to me. I note that in the document entitled “ Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending 30th June, 1964” provision is made for an appropriation of £6,029,000 for the Department of Customs and Excise. In the document entitled “ Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year Ending 30th June, 1964” provision is made for a total special and annual appropriation of. £17,888,000. There is quite a large difference between the two sums. The total amount provided for salaries and allowances is £4,444,800. The Senate is entitled to an explanation of the variation in these figures.

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

– Three officers with language qualifications are employed at the port of Fremantle. I understand that they attend every ship that arrives.

Senator Cant:

– Which languages do they speak?

Senator HENTY:

– I am sorry, but I have not that information. I shall get it for you. The difference between the two sets of figures which the honorable senator mentioned is accounted for by the fact that the Department of Customs and Excise administers the payment of the various bounties, such as the copper bounty and the superphosphate bounty

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

.- I did not intend to enter the discussion regarding censorship, a matter that is controlled by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty), but some of the remarks that have been made to-night have compelled me to rise in defence of the Minister and the manner in which he exercises his responsibility in this connexion.

Senator Willesee:

– On a point of order, Mr. Temporary Chairman, I suggest that you should direct Senator Prowse to come back to the subject before committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Anderson:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I suggest to Senator Willesee that he should not attempt to slop the discussion at this stage, after it has been proceeding for some hours. Is the honorable senator seriously taking a point of order?

Senator Willesee:

– Yes, I am serious.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then, I do not uphold it.

Senator PROWSE:

– The question of book censorship is one that has exercised the minds of all thinking people. It is a matter in which I have great sympathy with the views expressed by Senator Murphy when he referred’ to books in the generally accepted way that we understand books to be literature, but unfortunately there seems to be something inherent in the make-up of human beings which causes them to prostitute anything that is essentially good. People string words together and call them a book. Are we to accept all the filth that the human mind can conceive and broadcast for profit? We have to draw a line somewhere.

For the purposes of administration, a line of demarcation has been drawn between books which can be considered to have literary merit and those which cannot be so considered. Those with literary merit are treated in a particular way. The rest are treated perhaps better than they deserve. I think that the average people of this country who look upon books as something to instruct, to amuse or to provide companionship, and as something of value, are glad that there is an organization under the control of this Government which is exercising supervision over the poison and the filth which can be disseminated throughout the community in the name of literature. I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Minister for the very sensible and practical way in which he administers this most difficult matter.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Proposed expenditure - Department of Customs and Excise - Capital Works and Services, £682,000- noted.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, £5,242,000.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– By way of preface, may I say that I have appreciated the courtesy and everconstant consideration of the Minister for Health (Senator Wade). I should think that if he were associated with an effective and efficient government he would be able to do a really excellent job. The Department of Health used to record its story in a biennial report which appeared, on some occasions, eighteen months after the figures were available. Now, under the administration of the present Director-General of Health and the present Minister, we are being provided with information really rapidly and we are all grateful for that fact. We have in our possession to-day the report for the year 1962-63. This is unprecedented. I think that great commendation is due to the Minister, the Director-General and members of the staff of the department.

I am particularly interested in the fact that the administrative staff of the department is responsible for the expenditure by medical and hospital benefit funds of an estimated £12,700,000. I am wondering about the position regarding the stabilization of medical fees. Questions have been asked about this matter in the Parliament. I know that the people in control of the various hospital and medical benefit funds are particularly concerned about it. I have been pointing out for a long time that it is essential that the funds be stabilized, irrespective of the figure that is agreed on. As recently as a couple of months ago, Sir Ronald Grieve was concerned about the matter, and I know that the Minister also is concerned, but we do not know what is being done. I hope that the Minister will advise us of the active steps that are being taken. I know that words are easy and cheap, and that sometimes they are also plentiful, but the contributors to the funds, particularly, are looking for action, lt is all very well to say that costs have risen and that the cost of living has increased since the funds were established. I think it is correct to say that the cost of living has risen by approximately 24.8 per cent., but medical fees for general practitioners have risen by 33.3 per cent.

Certain sections of the medical profession are opposed to stabilization of fees. The medical practitioners in the eastern suburbs of Sydney have said that they will not accept stabilization of fees, even though .the Australian Medical Association is interested in the matter. The controllers of the various medical benefit funds also are interested. The contributors have a particular interest because they have been facing increasing contributions. When the scheme was inaugurated, the late Sir Earle Page visualized that the contributions would be such that they would meet 90 per cent, of medical fees. As the Minister knows, at the present time an average of approximately twothirds of medical fees is being met. In some cases the proportion is less than that. Because of the way in which the funds are proceeding at present, those in control of them fear for their stability. More than 80 per cent, of the contributions is being disbursed in fees, while administration charges amount to between 14 and 16 per cent. The only thing that tends to lessen the overall cost is the fact that, in regard to hospital benefit funds, the administration charges are so much less than they are for the medical benefit funds. The average administration charge is approximately 11 per cent., but from the point of view of the disbursement of medical benefit funds, the administration charges are as high as 14 or 16 per cent. That leaves very little margin. If it had not been for a completely fortuitous set of circumstances early in the history of the funds they could not have survived, because practically none of them was actuarially sound. It happened that in the early days of their operations there were no epidemics, nor was there any undue or unusual strain imposed on the funds. In that way, they were able to build up reserves.

According to a statement I have in my hand, the national health scheme is in danger of collapse because of the refusal of some doctors to agree to stabilization of fees. I have here an authoritative article which was written last year by an expert on medical and hospital benefit schemes. lt said -

The golden goose of medical benefits is in danger of having ils head chopped off. lt has already been well plucked.

That person was an authority and the article was a feature article. He pleaded for a stabilization of fees.

This scheme really is a bonanza for doctors, and those who have a sense of proportion and view this matter in the right perspective realize that stabilization of fees will give an assurance of protection. The Labour Party will sponsor and encourage voluntary insurance, but it does not believe that voluntary insurance is the complete answer. It is part of our policy to encourage it. Voluntary insurance is intended to be, and visualized as, a measure of financial protection to people in time of emergency, but such protection is rapidly disappearing because of changing circumstances, one of which is that the Government has not increased its contribution since the inauguration of the scheme, and does not show any evidence of increasing its contribution even though the various funds have increased their contributions towards medical expenses. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this, and to advise the Senate just how far the Government has gone on in respect of stabilization of fees. The Government can be assured that it has the support of those in authoritative positions in the Australian Medical Association. lt should know also that those in control of the various medical benefits funds are definitely in favour of the stabilization of fees and that the responsible men in the medical profession in general are in favour of it, irrespective of the fee that is agreed upon.

There is another matter with which I wish to deal. The Government has hesitated to accept the suggestion that it should establish a medical register for Australia. Neither will it establish a register of specialists. Further, the Government is not prepared to differentiate - apart from visits to the surgery - in the contributions it makes in respect to treatment by general practitioners and specialists. I know that for a first visit the Government does make a more substantial contribution in the case of a specialist, but for subsequent visits it does so only for visits to a surgery. In relation to surgical operation’s, the Government’s contribution in respect of the medical graduate who has just left hospital after a year’s residency is the same as it is for work performed by the leading surgeon in Australia. The same applies in pathological and radiological services. The Government contributes the same in the case of a man who has a Watson portable X-ray machine as it does in the case of the most experienced radiologist in the Commonwealth, with possibly £10,000 to £15,000 worth of equipment and with ten, twenty or thirty years’ experience behind him. I should be pleased to have the Minister’s views on this matter.

The sooner the Government gives consideration to the establishment - it can do it in co-operation with the States - of an Australian-wide register of medical practitioners and an Australian-wide register of specialists, the better. The only State in the Commonwealth that has a register of specialists is Queensland. I do not think the Commonwealth Government has done anything to establish such a register. If this were done the Government could differentiate in the contributions it makes, ft could see that those who are experienced in a particular field receive something commensurate with their talents and experience, and it could see that a measure of financial protection is given to people who are members of funds. The day is rapidly approaching when people are going to gamble on whether they will be well or ill. At present if a person wishes to get reasonable protection he must make a combined contribution of 10s. a week to hospital and medical benefits funds. If contributions go any higher many people who are on low wages will gamble against ill health because they will say, in effect, “ We cannot afford to be in this scheme “.

The purpose of the national health scheme, as visualized by the late Sir Earle Page, was to provide financial protection for people in a time of emergency. That protection is disappearing to-day. Figures taken out comparatively recently indicate that the payments made by medical benefit funds cover only two-thirds of medical expenses. The balance has to be found by the contributors. That position was never visualized when the medical benefits scheme was introduced. Irrespective of how excellent the Minister may be, how co-operative, considerate and courteous he is, he will be recreant to his trust and to his responsibility if he does not see fit to adopt measures - by constraint or otherwise^ - to bring about stability in these funds and thus give protection to contributors.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I wish to deal with Division No. 292 - Quarantine, and obtain an assurance from the Minister for Health (Senator Wade) on an important point. Before doing so may I say that the standard of public health in Australia is perhaps the highest in the world and that many diseases to humans, animals and plants have been kept out of this country. I hope that they will continue to be kept out, because we all realize how dependent we are on primary industry and what a tragic thing it would be if plant or animal diseases crept in. The thing that disturbs me is that with the speeding up of air transport and an increase in trade and tourism a larger variety of problems are cropping up in relation to diseases. I am interested in the situation in New Guinea, along the West Irian border, particularly under the new regime in West Irian. I should like the Minister to give me an assurance that everything possible is being done in this matter. Some people, particularly farmers, think that there is a possibility of diseases coming in over that border.

I desire also to deal with Division No. 293, sub-division 2, item 09, which relates to payments to States for capital and incidental expenditure in relation to the milk for school children scheme. It is estimated that the expenditure for this year will be £12,930. Last year the estimate was £12,600. I would be glad if the Minister would explain to me why this is a recurring expense, what is it for, and what the incidental expenditure involves.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · Victoria · CP

– I hope Senator Dittmer will not misunderstand me if I reply to

Senator Drake-Brockman first. I have only a limited time at my disposal and as the honorable senator has raised matters of great importance-

Senator Arnold:

– Do you say that the matters Senator Dittmer raised are not important?

Senator WADE:

– I suggested that Senator Dittmer had raised a matter of great importance and I said that I needed more time than is available- to-night to do justice to his “questions. I suggest to Senator Cant, with great respect, that not all of us have warped minds and that the Government has a decent appreciation of what a senator’s entitlement is.

I now propose to refer to the matter raised by Senator Drake-Brockman. This also is a most important matter, but it is one that I can answer in fewer minutes than I would require for Senator Dittmer. Senator Drake-Brockman referred specifically to a matter that is exercising the minds of many primary producers in Australia to-day. As the responsible Minister I welcome their continuing and pressing interest in this vital problem of animal and plant quarantine. Whilst we as a government may say that we and preceding governments have a magnificent record in this field, conditions are changing so rapidly to-day that none of us can be complacent. None of us can adopt the attitude that because we have been free of these exotic diseases for 50 years, we can rest on our laurels. Such thinking is dangerous, and it might be appropriate in this context to use a saying that has been used on a much higher plane: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I should like the honorable senator to know that the Government and my department welcome the increasing interest which is being displayed by the primary industries in this issue. From time to time I have been assisted greatly by the practical suggestions that they have made. The honorable senator asked me specifically whether, as a government, we have taken any additional measures to protect our interests from the ever-increasing threat coming from some northern areas. I anticipated this question because I know that it is of great interest. For that reason I took the trouble to set down some of the steps that have been taken in addition to the measures employed in days gone by.

To-day we have precautionary procedures on aircraft arriving from any part of New Guinea. We rid aircraft of insects on arrival and we use incinerators to destroy refuse and unconsumed food of New Guinea origin. Also, we apply restrictions on the use of aircraft which have plied to or within New Guinea if they are to be used for the transportation of animals within Australia. These are recent measures, and I believe the reasons for them are self-evident.

We have also taken a quite novel procedure to supplement those measures. Arrangements have been made with the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Stock whereby fifteen stock inspectors have been appointed on inhabited Torres Strait islands. As the honorable senator will know, there is a series of islands in this area which almost join New Guinea. The officers appointed as stock inspectors are senior government officials, such as schoolteachers and postmasters. Their function is to report any sickness or deaths in cattle, pigs, poultry, dogs and horses, and any illegal movement of livestock from New Guinea to the Torres Strait islands. In addition, the Queensland department, at the request of the Commonwealth Department of Health, will appoint a veterinary officer to Thursday Island for veterinary surveillance of the Torres Strait islands and the top of Cape York Peninsula. He will visit all islands by launch and investigate any disease of animals. He will be the Commonwealth animal quarantine officer and the major part of his salary and expenses will be met by the Commonwealth.

Thursday Island is in constant contact by wireless with all inhabited Torres Strait islands, and the Department of Native Affairs launch visits each island at least once each month. No doubt in an emergency the launch could be diverted to take the quarantine officer to the scene of any suspected disease outbreak. The Health Department has appointed two senior animal quarantine officers, one from the Northern Territory and one from Victoria, to attend this month in Canada a course on exotic diseases. They will then visit Plum Island animal disease laboratory in the United States of America. On their return to Australia they will undergo a postgraduate course on exotic diseases. This will be sponsored by the Health Department.

I think it is fair to say that that short recital of our approach to this problem must bc reassuring to those many people interested in primary industries to-day who are concerning themselves with this very important problem. I should like to add that if there are any interests in the primary producing industries who have further constructive suggestions to make to the Government as to what additional measures could be taken in this field, they have my assurance that whatever contributions they (make will be accepted and will be given every consideration.

Progress reported.

page 908

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir William Spooner) agreed to -

That the Senate, at ils rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 8th October, at 3 p.m.

page 908

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:
Queensland

– I present the eighth report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m., till Tuesday, 8th October, at 3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 September 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1963/19630926_senate_24_s24/>.