Senate
30 March 1966

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1966

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

page 317

QUESTION

CHARLES F. ADAMS DESTROYERS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister for Supply. Is it a fact that Charles F. Adams destroyers cost the United States Government $34 million and the Australian Government $40 million? Can the Minister explain the reasons for this difference in cost? Is it true that the two Tartar missile launchers on these ships cost $13 million each and that the ships themselves cost $14 million? Can the Minister say whether it is a fact, as alleged, that the Tartar weapon has an efficiency of only 5 per cent. - in other words, 10 hits in 200 firings? Finally, what action is the Government taking to safeguard Australia’s interests in the matter of litigation in the United States against the General Electric and Westinghouse Corporations which- have been arraigned on 900 counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States Government in connection with the supply and installation of Tartar missile equipment on the Charles F. Adams destroyers and which have already pleaded guilty to some of these indictments?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

– The facts and figures relating to the contracts were compiled long before I became associated with the Department of Supply. I have not got them at my fingertips and I do not think that the honorable senator would expect me to have them. I suggest that he puts the question on the notice paper and I will obtain an answer for him.

page 317

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for External Affairs. Has the Minister seen statements attributed to the Russian Communist leader wherein he has said that America and her allies must get out of Vietnam? Did he make this statement to the 86 countries represented at the 23rd Communist Party Congress? Is the National Liberation Front or the Vietcong, from Vietnam, represented at this congress? Has the Australian

Communist Party sent delegates to the congress? If so, can the Minister say whether they have been sent by the Moscow or the Peking section of the Party?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– I have seen some reference to the statement in the Press to which the honorable senator refers. I do not know whether or not the Australian Communist Party has sent delegates to the congress, nor do 1 know which branch of the Australian Communist Party would send delegates who would be admitted to it. I imagine that both branches would have a great interest in the congress because they have common desires with the overseas parties. But I am afraid I do not know whether delegates have been sent.

page 317

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Will the Minister inform the Postmaster-General, prior to the framing of this year’s Budget, of the urgent necessity to give concessions, or further concessions, to blind people in regard to telephone charges? These people, because of their grave affliction, are in great need of telephone facilities. I urge the Minister to convey this suggestion to the PostmasterGeneral so that favourable consideration might be given to it.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall convey the question to the Postmaster-General.

page 317

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In order to assist many wheatgrowers who had poor crops in the 1965-66 season and who are now experiencing financial difficulty because of the drought, will the Minister endeavour to have adequate credit made available to the Australian Wheat Board so that a second advance from wheat pool No. 28 can be made immediately to growers?

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Requests that the payment mentioned by the honorable senator be made to wheatgrowers have been received by members of Parliament from individual growers and by the Minister from interested organisations. In most cases the organisations have not been unanimous in their requests for payment. However, Cabinet has had a look at this matter and 1 expect a decision to be arrived at and announced within the next few days.

page 318

QUESTION

PASSIONFRU1T

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by saying that Queensland passionfruit growers are having difficulty disposing of passionfruit pulp. Will the Minister advise the quantities of passionfruit pulp which have been imported from Kenya, Fiji, South Africa and other countries? Can the Minister provide details of total production in this industry, including processed passionfruit, for the year ended 31st December 1965? Is it the Government’s intention to take any action in the immediate future to protect the passionfruit industry?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I will ask the Minister for Primary Industry to provide the honorable senator with the information requested in the first part of his question. 1 think the second part of the question involves government policy.

page 318

QUESTION

GIFT OF RICE TO INDONESIA

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for External Affairs. Will he disclose to the Senate the circumstances surrounding the gift of rice to Indonesia by the Commonwealth of Australia? Did a request for rice come from Indonesia or was the rice offered by Australia? Why did Australia offer rice? Has Australia ever exported rice to Indonesia? Knowing that our flour market, particularly in Indonesia, has been depleted over the last four or five years and that this has resulted in some 30 flour mills in Australia having to close, has the Minister had any consultations with the flour millers association on the proposition that we should perhaps send flour to Indonesia instead of rice?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The circumstances surrounding the offer by Australia to the Indonesian Government are these: No doubt many honorable senators will have read of the terrible natural disaster, the floods, which struck rice growing areas in Indo nesia, devastating them and causing great distress to the people living in them. These people are accustomed, in the main, to a rice diet and we believed that the best assistance we could give them and their country was to offer them the food to which they are accustomed. This we did. We did not receive a prior request from the Indonesian Government. We thought that, as a neighbour, we could take the initiative and seek to try to help those in distress by giving them what appeared to us to be that which they would most require. We have not had consultations with the Australian flour millers because the offer we made was an offer of rice.

page 318

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Acting Minister for External Affairs. Was the report which appeared in the “Daily Mirror” last evening that the Americans bombed a Vietcong mine factory only .1.8 miles from Saigon correct? If so, has this factory existed only 18 miles from headquarters for the four years of American participation in the Vietnam conflict? If it has not, is American security and assistance such that, mine factories can be built and operated by the enemy within 18 miles of headquarters?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– Speaking without having read the report referred to, and therefore subject to possible misinterpretation of what it says, it would seem to me to be entirely possible that in the type of country that is found in the jungle 18 miles from Saigon, there could be some underground stations manufacturing munitions. They could have been constructed, camouflaged and hidden for a number of years. That would appear to me to be the possible explanation for the reference mentioned by the honorable senator, but T say that without having read the report.

page 318

QUESTION

MALTA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– T direct a question to the Acting Minister for External Affairs. In the light of the recent Constitution created for Malta which guaranteed complete political freedom for all parties, could the Minister inquire from the United Kingdom Government whether all segments of the Maltese community lived up to this concept of democracy in the recent election?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I do not think I can answer the question. What was the last part of it? Could I say whether the people have lived up to their ideas of democracy at the last election? I do not think I can answer that.

Senator Mulvihill:

– No. I asked whether our Government could inquire from the United Kingdom Government whether all segments of the Maltese community had lived up to the concept of democracy in the recent election.

Hie PRESIDENT. - Order! The Minister obviously cannot answer that question.

page 319

QUESTION

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of Australia’s serious balance of payments position will the Government consider taking action to discourage the heavy drain caused by outflow of premiums to overseas insurers?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– Australia’s balance of trade position is being carefully watched by the Government. As a matter of fact, it has been improving and is by no means a serious worry to the Government at the moment, although it has to be watched. The honorable senator apparently feels that our balance of trade is such that we should adopt socialist ideas of interference with private enterprise. I can assure him that the Government has no intention of doing such a thing.

page 319

QUESTION

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government who represents the Minister for National Development in this chamber. It refers to a recent report that 15,000 square miles of prime cattle land on the Cape York Peninsula had been leased to American controlled syndicates and that the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board had acted as agent for most of the American purchasers. To what extent are efforts made by the Commonwealth Government in concert with the

State Governments to maintain an Australian equity in such transactions?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I do not know whether the honorable senator is complaining that this part of northern Australia is being developed. I understood that the Government was challenged on northern development. 1 think this is a fine piece of northern development. Apparently, the land has been there for a long time lying idle and now various firms have undertaken its development. I presume that this has been done with the full knowledge of the Queensland State Government as land development comes under its jurisdiction. I have no information on the size of the properties. If the honorable senator puts his question on the no:ice paper I shall get for him those details which I have been unable to supply.

page 319

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Will he approach the Minister for Labour and National Service with a view to setting up a Commonwealth Employment Service office at Gilgandra, New South Wales, for people seeking employment in that district who have to travel 40 miles to Dubbo? Is the Minister aware that this also adversely affects the payment of drought relief funds to the local council as employment in the district is shown accordingly at a low level?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I will bring to the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Service the honorable senator’s suggestion that an employment office be set up in the New South Wales town which he mentioned. I suggest that he, as a senator representing New South Wales, if he considers that such an employment office should be set up, might like to write a letter to the Minister for Labour and National Service.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– The Minister will see his colleague, too, will he?

Senator GORTON:

– I will bring what the honorable senator has said to the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Service.

page 320

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister forthe Army a question chat arises out of the replyI received from the Acting Minister for External Affairs, which frightens me somewhat. Can the Minister give an assurance that no enemy activities can be commenced or maintained in close proximity to Australian camps in Vietnam?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– Enlarging on what Senator Gorton said a few minutes ago, it is quite obvious that Senator Cavanagh does not realise the conditions which obtain in the struggle in Vietnam. To those of us who are familiar with the terrain in most of Australia, it is incredible that an incident such asthe one he mentioned a little while ago could occur. But 1 am informed that such things are quite possible. The terrain accounts for the many mortar attacks (hat are made on the outskirts of aerodromes which have thousands of troops guarding them. This makes the task of the Allied forces in Vietnam ever so much more difficult. For instance, there are miles of tunnels which are just large enough to accommodate the Vietnamese who are only small people. Apparently these tunnels have been in existence for years. There is no loose earth to betray their existence. Very often they are discovered only by accident. Only when we realise the difficult terrain in Vietnam can we understand that incidents such as the one that has been mentioned can occur.

page 320

QUESTION

AID TO OVERSEAS COUNTRIES

Senator BISHOP:

– Is the Acting Minister for External Affairs in a position to give further information on a Press report from New Delhi this week, which quoted Mr. Hasluck as having said that Australia was ready to help developing countries in Asia with advice on boosting agricultural production? Does this mean that the Government does not envisage extending financial and mechanical equipment aid beyond present commitments?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I should like that question to be put on the notice paper. As the honorable senator no doubt knows, we have provided to developing countries in Asia mechanical equipment in the form of pumps and tractors and also actual know- how in the form of instructors. In order to enable a detailed answer to be given on allthat we have done, are doing and are prepared to do, I shouldlike the honorable senator to put his question on the notice paper.

page 320

MERINO RAMS

SenatorLAUGHT.-I wish to askthe

Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. Does the Government intend to retain the current ban on the export of merino rams? Has it been made aware of the alleged recent move by Sir William Gunn, Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, to have Government policy changed?

Senator HENTY:
LP

-I think Government policy has always been pretty clear on such matters as this in the rural industries. The Government seeks the advice of the industry organisation concerned and so ascertains the opinion of the industry itself. I understand that we have had no approach from the wool industry to alter the policy which has existed for many years. 1 read in the Press only last week that the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council had reaffirmed its support of a continuance of the prohibition on the export of merino rams. That is the situation, as 1 understand it, at the present time.

page 320

QUESTION

BREAD

(Question No. 691.)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. To what extent is the bread industry of Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons concerned and what is the extent of their ownership or control of
  3. sources of supply,
  4. manufacturing and
  5. distribution.
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answer -

It is not possible to estimate accurately the proportion of the bread industry which is owned or controlled by overseas interests. Prominent companies in the industry, however, which are known to have overseas affiliations are shown below, to- gether with the name of the overseas company with which each is associated, the total assets of the Australian firm where known, and the degree of overseas ownership.

page 321

QUESTION

FLOUR

(Question No. 695.)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. To what extent is the flour milling industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons involved and what is the extent of their ownership or control of the industry?
  3. Have there been trends in recent years (a) towards overseas ownership or control and/or (b) towards monopoly in the industry; if so, what have been the changes?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers -

  1. The principal overseas companies in the industry are shown in the following table, together with the Australian firm with which each is associated, the degree of overseas ownership of the Australian firm, its total assets, and the number of mills it owns.
  1. There have been a number of instances of take overs of flour mills within the industry in recent years, both by local firms and by those with overseas affiliations. Details of such take overs since 1955, based on information available to the Department of Trade and Industry, are shown below -

page 322

QUESTION

CRAVF1SHING

(Question No. 815.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

As the increasing number of persons engaged in the crayfishing industry in South Australia is threatening the continuation of this industry, could not some controls bc implemented to guarantee a permanent and profitable export industry?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

The fishery concerns the State of South Australia within the limit of the territorial waters of that State, and the Commonwealth in proclaimed waters beyond (hat limit. I understand that the South Australian fisheries authorities are examining the need for further management measures at present and officers of my Department are in consultation wilh them When any proposals are submitted by the South Australian Government, I will give them careful consideration.

page 322

SOFTWOOD PLANTING

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 29th March (vide page 315), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Senate take note of the following paper -

Softwood Planting in Australia - Ministerial Statement, 16th March 1966.

Senator WEBSTER (Victoria) 13.25].- The Senate has before it a statement by the Minister for National Development (Mr. Fairbairn) regarding Commonwealth assistance to the States for the expansion of softwood planting. The Minister’s statement follows discussions with the Australian Forestry Council. The recommendations of the Council showed that there is a great need substantially to lift the planting rale of softwood in this country. The Australian Forestry Council is comprised of the six appropriate Ministers from the States, the Federal Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) and the Minister for National Development. While agreeing that the States were allocating substantial funds to the growing of pine forests, the State Ministers were unable, due to financial difficulty, very greatly to accelerate their planting programmes.

From the Australian Forestry Council a request has come to the Minister for National Development, as Chairman of the Council, to approach the Commonwealth for increased funds. This measure is of great and vital importance, not only to our timber industry, but to many allied industries, including the paper and pulp industry. The economy of Australia certainly is deeply involved. I believe that the decision of the Australian Forestry Council, about 18 months after its formation, has caused to be brought forward a report of which we, as members of this Parliament, can be particularly proud. Apparently the first task of the Council was to look into and decide upon the present and future requirements of softwood plantings in Australia. The outcome of the inquiry was the finding that there were substantial deficiencies in the supply of timber, particularly softwoods, to the Australian market. The future ability of the industry to supply both local and overseas demands was not particularly bright. It was suggested by the Australian Forestry Council that the position could be substantially alleviated by a planting programme m the States.

The planting of softwoods is not a particularly modern innovation. It is of interest to note that the first plantings of softwoods in Australia were made in about 1870. They were made in South Australia by a man named Brown. With the establishment of the South Australian Woods and Forests Division there came about the first government forestry department in the British Commonwealth. I think it is a credit to South Australia, which today makes a major contribution to Australia’s output of timber products, that its forestry department should have been established so many years ago.

At present in Australia we use annually about 6,000 million super feet of timber and forest products; in value it represents about S600 million. A third of that volume of timber is imported and represents to the Commonwealth an annual import bill of about $200 million. It is at this point that the Federal Government has aimed the measure we are discussing. It is estimated that increased usage in the next 35 years will amount to between 14,000 million and 15,000 million super feet of timber. This could mean that, if the present planting rate were maintained, our import bill for timber would be likely to approach $600 million. If we are to create a substantial selfsufficiency in timber’ and forest products we must increase our planting rate. The Australian Forestry Council aims at approximately doubling the present rate of planting in Australia. About 40,000 acres of pines and other timbers are being planted each year. If this planting is increased to 75,000 acres each year in the next 35 years, the lag in production will be substantially overcome. Even so, there will still be a deficiency in certain types of timber and undoubtedly imports will still be necessary.

There are difficulties today in importing timber. Indeed, the timber industry is not able to get all the types and qualities of timbers it requires for internal work in buildings. However, the- planting proposed would create timber resources from three million acres of softwoods in Australia. It is interesting to note that this proposal is supported widely by all parties in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. It is pleasing to note also that in the past 18 months, the Government has not only set up the Australian Foresty Council but has also taken the advice of the Council. Its action is commendable. The Australian Forestry Council has under it a Standing

Committee which consists of the DirectorGeneral of the Commonwealth Forestry and Timber Bureau, the head of each State forestry service and the Chief of the Division of Forest products in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I make the point that perhaps the assistance of private enterprise could have been taken into account. I hope to give the Senate some facts on the value of the work done by private enterprise in forestry. Perhaps the Standing Committee would have benefited from the advise of an individual representing private enterprise.

Our imports of softwoods and hardwoods come from many countries. At present we are importing softwoods from Canada and the United States of America, principally Oregon in various grades and sizes. We will not be able to avoid using this source in the foreseeable future as we draw timber in bulk flitches up to 24 inches wide by 6 inches and up to 40 feet long. We get 18 by 18 sections in the same length and there are few forests in Australia which could provide timber of that size and of similar quality.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The timber is 18 inches by 18 inches. We also bring in hemlock from that source and I foresee imports from Canada and the U.S.A. for many years. Formerly the market obtained supplies of flooring and weatherboards from Norway and Sweden but these supplies have almost been depleted and imports have been eliminated on the strength of production of softwood materials of similar type and quality in various parts of Australia. At present we are importing from Africa special exotic timbers which are in use in high fashion products. We also import from Malaysia and Indonesia.

I think we should try to develop production in the islands to the north of Australia. The Government has ‘ mills in New Guinea which are utilising the vast stands in the areas we control. It is a pity that Australian combines could not get together and supply the huge amount of capital required to develop the stand of timber in New Guinea. The Commonwealth Government has found it wise and practical to obtain from sources throughout the world the enormous amount of capital required to build harbours, roads and mills to exploit the bigger stands in New Guinea. New Zealand has stands of timber in which many Australians are interested. Indeed, approximately 10 per cent, of Australia’s imports of timber come from New Zealand. It is interesting to note that, at our present rate of consumption, we will continue in the foreseeable future to take at least that volume of timber from .New Zealand. Even if our demand increases, New Zealand will be able to allow only about 10 per cent, of our needs to be obtained from that country.

Although the Minister’s paper deals only with softwoods, I advocate the giving of attention to our hardwood industry also. This industry is of immense importance to Australia. Honorable senators probably know that the basic framing of timber dwellings and brick veneer dwellings generally consists of hardwoods. Quite a variety of these are in demand. I suggest that the hardwood milling industry is one of the most efficient industries in my State of Victoria. In more recent years there has been a change from the rather harsh way in which millers used to treat forests to a more ready acceptance of the fact that timber has to farmed. If reservations are gone through carefully, if thinnings are made carefully, and if young timber is cared for as the larger timber is felled, we may look for a rather remarkable regrowth of hardwood stands. The reserve of hardwood timbers in Tasmania is perhaps greater than that of any other area in Australia.

Senator Henty:

– There are a lot of timber farmers there.

Senator WEBSTER:

– -That is so. There are certainly great stands of timber in Tasmania. I know of one miller who had gone through a particular area about 20 years ago and who expressed great surprise when he returned more recently and discovered that regrowth had brought the forest back to its original state. The interests of the hardwood milling people in that area should be looked at with a view to encouraging the further growth of eucalypts. Many overseas countries are placing great weight on the growing of hardwoods. Growers from Sweden are taking up large tracts of land in Portugal and are sowing them down with eucalypts to gain the greatest growth that is possible in that area of the world.

I return to the subject of softwoods, lt is interesting to note the rapid increase in softwood consumption in recent years. This can be attributed to the fact mat great interest has been displayed by associations that foresaw that the rate of growth could bc substantiated, that conditions in Australia are good, and that there is a demand for this product. The various scientific organisations have assisted in the development of new techniques and methods. Whereas 20 or 30 years ago pinus radiata was looked at askance, today it is one of the basic commodities of the timber industry. The increase in the use of pinus radiata and other softwoods had been phenomenal. Not many years ago the timber that was required for flooring and weatherboards in Victoria was imported. This market is rapidly being lost to those who have the capacity to supply the requirements from within the State. The impregnation of pine with various chemicals or salts has led to that timber being regarded very highly in the community.

The utilisation of softwoods is a matter of considerable interest. Nowadays instead of a tree being cut down and the branches and the thinnings left where the tree was felled, as was the case formerly, the thinnings and the immature material are being used in various ways. Small section limbers are being sought for pulping and for the manufacture of boards and chipboards, which are produced in an amazing number of sizes. The production of such boards is a completely new industry to that which we knew some years ago. I suggest that we are overlooking the demands of private enterprise in this field.

Senator Murphy:

– What has it been doing about this situation over the years?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Private enterprise has been doing a great deal. It is regrettable that honorable senators opposite do not realise the part it has played. In his statement the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) said -

The Council estimated that private forest owners will contribute on the average at least 10,000 acres a year to the programme.

He was referring to the programme which was aimed al planting 75,000 acres per annum. The report of Australian Paper

Manufacturers Ltd. for 1965 shows that the company is planting some 7.300 acres per year. That is an enormous contribution by one organisation. Softwoods Holdings Ltd. in the South Australian area is planting some 2,000 acres per year. Besides these contributions, there are smaller companies which plant forests to ensure supplies for their own processes, f refer to the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Tasmania Board Mills Ltd. and the timber company of G. M. Raymond. These companies contribute a total of more than 10,000 acres per year. South Australian Perpetual Forests Ltd. plants 3.300 acres per year. There arc various other radiata development organisations which in actual fact contribute more than 5.000 acres per year. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that more than 20.000 acres are being planted by private enterprise each year.

Not only do these companies plant forests, but they also encourage the use of forest products. Many farmers in the community today are playing a most important part in this industry, In my own State of Victoria, the State Government has found a method by which it encourages farmers to plant 10, 20 or 30 acres of pine trees, which not only add to the beauty of the area and give protection to stock during the growing years, but also provide the farmers, after a period, with a very valuable income. 1. support the remarks which Senator Laught made last night regarding the question of taxation. 1 think that this question should be considered. Taxation on the revenue derived from the forests in one year should be spread over a period. lt is interesting to note the use to which softwoods are put in other areas. From the point of view of the farming community, I suggest that greater use is now made of softwood poles for fencing than was the case previously. Some 10 years ago a person would have been scoffed at if he had suggested the use of 3 inch or 4 inch diameter poles as fence posts. It would have been very difficult to get them onto the market. In South Australia at the present time plant is being installed which will produce more than a quarter of a million fence posts a year. Treatment plants in Australia today produce more than two million fence posts per year, lt is interesting to note that there has been a complete change in the type of fencing being constructed by farmers. It has been found to be an economical proposition to continue to use the larger posts in areas where there is timber which we know will withstand the ravages of time. I refer to boxwood and other types of timber. Today we have a machine which will quickly put a point on the end of a 3 inch or 4 inch pole, and by the use of a rammer on the back of a tractor fence posts can be driven into the ground and firm fencing erected with new type high tensile wire. Droppers of 1 inch by 1 inch can be placed at great distances apart.

There has been some argument about the fire resistant quality of timber posts. I confidently predict that within a short time it will be possible for pinus radiata posts of this very small diameter to be impregnated in such a way that they will become fire resistant. It is fair to say that no post is completely unaffected by the ravages of fire. Indeed, a steel post will twist to such an extent that it cannot be brought back to shape and be utilised again. The impregnation of pine posts with certain types of chemicals such as celcure, tanilith and bolidem makes them suitable for use by electricity supply authorities, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and various other organisations. The softwood industry is coming into its own.

After impregnation with salts of copper, chromium and arsenic three inch or four inch posts will not only resist decay but will also resist attack by insects. Eight or ten years ago posts of three or four inch diameter would last in the ground for perhaps four or five years. Today, with the latest methods of impregnation, posts will last up to 30 or 40 years. This is an indication of the immense use which will be made of softwoods in the future. We can look forward to the production of softwood becoming an important sector of our economy. The Government is cognizant of this.

I have mentioned the planting of softwoods by certain private organisations. The 1964 report to which I have referred indicates that some 27,000 acres of softwood was planted on behalf of Government instrumentalities and some 16,000 acres on behalf of private enterprise organisations. This represents about a 37 per cent, contribution by private organisations. There ls a limit to the ability of private individuals and private companies to bear the immense cost involved over the lengthy period necessary to produce mature softwoods. The experience of private enterprise has shown that the initial establishment cost of one acre of pine, including the cost of the land which may vary from area to area, can be $70 or S80. Then there is the cost of the continuing maintenance which is necessary. This has been estimated at perhaps 54 annually. After nine years the cost has risen to some $112, so a private organisation would be out of pocket to that extent.

There are very few organisations which, in present circumstances, would not find it much more attractive to divert this money into an avenue which would afford a much more ready return. For that reason I believe that we, as senators, have a duty to give some encouragement to private enterprise. If we accept that about one-third of our softwood forests are planted by private enterprise, surely we should ‘be encouraging our Government to make finance available to this particularly important sector of the economy or to do something else to provide encouragement to it. It is doubtful whether government instrumentalities will be able to handle the entire softwood afforestation programme. If we remember that private enterprise would probably have to borrow at 7 per cent, interest to find the finance necessary to meet the initial development cost, we will realise that quite a sizable investment is required. I point out, however, that in the tenth year of operation thinnings become available. These are turned into pulp and return some $40 an acre thus reducing costs in the tenth year to about $72 an acre. Then there is the problem of maintenance for the next five or six years at the cost of $4 a year. At the end of 15 years that would amount to a total cost of $92 to provide every acre of softwood. Then the yield in the fifteenth year, on the second thinning, would put the planter in credit. I believe it is in this fifteenth year that not only government departments but private enterprise would be able to make some repayment of capital or interest if finance could be made available to them.

The severe cost for the farmer handling this type of material is the insurance cover of his forest. We can readily imagine the premiums that an insurance company would want for such a cover. I believe it is possible now to get insurance at a cost of about $1.10 or $1.12 per acre of forest. But softwood forests are a matter of national importance. Surely we must consider the contribution that private enterprise has made. We may say that the money which we allocate at this time is going to a government department. On the local scene, local councils will not necessarily gain any rates from the Government plantings. If some money were made available to private enterprise there would be an immediate return to the local government bodies. It would be fair to say, I think, that out of every £1 that a private individual would get out of his forest, the Federal Government would receive from 12s. 6d. to 14s. by way of taxation. This will not necessarily happen if Government instrumentalities own the plantations. I urge the Minister for National Development to seek as quickly as possible some method of encouraging further planting by private instrumentalities. So far as insurance is concerned, I feel that the Government could also contribute in this nationally important matter. In the last year or so the Senate has approved several measures providing insurance for peculiar types of borrowing. The Housing Loans Insurance Act was passed last year. Under that legislation, the Government decided that it would contribute to the housing field by allowing an overriding guarantee by the Commonwealth for certain housing loans. Again, in the export field, there is the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. Although a body working on its own, it is financed from Federal funds. There again, on a nationally important matter, this Government has given protection in cases where insurance costs may be particularly high. I suggest that there is no more important field in Australia than that of forestry in which this Government could play a part in devising some means of providing cheap or economical insurance to cover loss by fire.

Senator Murphy:

– The honorable senator wants a bit of Socialism.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is not Socialism in this instance.

Senator Murphy:

– It is Socialism. The honorable senator is calling it by another name.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is not so. This is an instance where insurance is very nearly impossible to obtain. There are a number of honorable senators in this chamber who would agree that fire in forestry areas is so great a risk that normal insurance companies will not cover them. In Victoria many local insurance companies were asked whether it was a business proposition for them to insure forests against fire. It will probably be necessary to insure with more substantial companies overseas. We do not want to do that. Today insurance is being taken out with overseas companies when it would be better if it were in local hands. I do not say that the insurance should be undertaken by the Commonwealth directly; but the Commonwealth could say to an insurance company: “ If you insure forests we will see that you are compensated for any loss that you incur “. The company may not incur any loss. That is the type of thing that we are doing under the Housing Loans Insurance Act. I suggest that the Minister for National Development could well look into this matter.

I heartily congratulate the Minister and the Government on the great contribution that they have made to the timber and forestry industry by commencing this work. I regard this as only a commencement because the Minister has suggested that this scheme will see us through trouble for the first 10 years. 1 trust that similar measures will come before the Parliament for endorsement. I hope that many millions of dollars will be provided in the future. I suggest that the next measure make available money to enable private enterprise to play its part in the planting of softwoods in Australia. On the recommendation of the Australian Forestry Council, $20 million is now being made available to the States. I suggest that about one-third of that amount - say $7 million - be made available to private industry so that it can go ahead with plantings at a much faster rate than it can at present. Many private organisations have their own nurseries and equipment. They are poised at a point where they could go ahead.

If we regard this matter as of national importance and if we wish to reduce our timber import bill in the years towards the end of this century, surely we should be encouraging private individuals to play a greater part. This is one of the most signi ficant matters ever to come on the Australian forestry scene. No previous government has ever sought to take such a step as this, which has the concurrence of honorable senators on every side of this chamber and which is certainly a great credit to the Government and to the Australian Forestry Council.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– Since the white man came to Australia we have done a great deal, with the aid of the sheep, the rabbit and the axe, to despoil this country.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Particularly with the axe.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank Senator Mulvihill for that interjection. The proposal set out in the statement read by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) is an endeavour to remedy some of the damage that has been done and to provide raw materials for the great Australian timber industry. The Government’s decision to offer the States $20 million in leng term loans over the next five years to help lift the planting rate in government softwood plantations is welcomed by the Opposition. This is a step in the right direction.

The recognition by the Government that this industry should be dealt with on a national basis is long overdue. Part of the Labour Party’s approach to our national resources is that they should be dealt with on a national basts. On many occasions when we raise questions concerning the resources of this country we are met with the false contention that these are matters for the States and the Commonwealth is unable to do anything about them. That is false, because the Commonwealth has ample means. It can give the States finance on conditions. That is what it is now proposing to do and that is why we welcome the proposition. We have heard what Senator Webster said this afternoon and I am indebted to one of my colleagues, Senator Willesee, for his observation that Senator Webster’s remarks may be summed up to mean that he wants to capitalise the gains and socialise the losses. That is what he wants. He welcomes public enterprise if it is to meet a loss which has been suffered by private enterprise, but otherwise he shouts: “ Socialism “. He referred to tha examples of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. Those are facets of Socialism.

A great deal of Socialism exists in Australia under one name or another and we are pleased to see that Senator Webster is welcoming this proposal in some measure, if not in the full measure that we would like. It does not matter whether it is called Socialism, so long as he agrees with it. It is enough that it is percolating through to those on the Government side of the chamber that in this area .we must have public enterprise - call it “ public enterprise “, “ public authority “, “ Socialism “ or anything you like. It has- been recognised that in many spheres of life - in industry, in commerce and in the opening up of our great natural resources - it is impossible, and undesirable in many cases, for private enterprise to undertake the job The only way in which it can be done effectively is by public enterprise - fey Socialism.

Senator Webster:

– Would the honorable senator not encourage private enterprise in any way?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. 1 think that in many ways there is a proper sphere for private enterprise in this community. I will continue with what I was saying, because although the diversion suggested by Senator Webster is interesting, I think some other opportunity might be more appropriate for a full debate on this question which crops up so many times in discussion in this chamber. I think the Senate is greatly indebted to Senator Cotton for his contribution to the debate. He is an expert, dedicated to the advancement of the timber industry, and his observations should be and are received with respect from all sides of this chamber. The Government has said: “ We recognise that here fs a great problem and that unless we do something about it Australia will be short of softwoods in the future. This shortage will increase and here we are rushing in to assist the timber industry to ensure that the requirements of Australia are provided for. We expect everyone to acclaim our action.” I have said that we welcome the action of the Government. We welcome the Government’s recognition of this need but I, for one, am not prepared to acclaim it because, although the action is proper, il is long overdue. Aus tralia faces a very serious shortage of softwoods. We know from what Senator Cotton told us, and from our own commonsense, that it is a long time after timber is planted before one gets the fruits of the planting. Every year that we delay costs a great deal of money. The estimate that this Government put before the Senate was that every year of delay will cost this country, by the end of the century, £200 million. That estimate is agreed on all sides. Why should the Government receive acclaim if, knowing this situation and knowing that we have the men, the land, and a desire on the part of State Governments to do the planting, it has allowed years to go by without giving the State Governments - and private enterprise too - the finance they desired?

Senator Webster:

– Private enterprise too?

Senator MURPHY:

– I say that if it is the Government’s intention to meet this problem by providing finance to private enterprise also, that should be done without delay. If that is the programme the Government has decided upon, no delay is tolerable in a matter which so concerns this great national resource. What is the position? Has there not been delay? There has been an inexcusable delay. Two years ago, on 3rd March 1964, I raised this question in this chamber as an urgent matter and on 7th April 1964, in a question on notice, I asked the then Minister for National Development a question as follows -

Are experts claiming (a) that a world shortage of pulp timber is developing, (b) that Australia’s forest areas are too small for its. needs in the near future, and (c) that an expenditure now of £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 on planting would save Australia about £200,000,000 a year in imported pulp timber by the end of this century?

The Minister answered -

  1. The world demand for paper products is already increasing at a rapid rate. Any improvement in the standard of living of the huge Asian population - particularly any improvement in its literacy - must cause this demand for paper to continue to increase. Experts claim that a problem exists in finding timber suitable for pulping in quantities adequate to establish an economic industry in localities where water is available in the large amount required by the paper industry, and where transport facilities are suitable.

There was the world problem. The Minister continued -

  1. I am advised that Australian forest areas are not necessarily too small for Australian needs, but the forests are inadequately developed and do not have a suitable balance of timber types. Our forests are seriously lacking in the more recently evolved types of coniferous wood which form the basis of die main timber industry of the world. State and Commonwealth forest services, and also private forest owners, are endeavouring to improve this adverse balance of species by establishing plantations of pines. 1 may say that all land masses in the southern hemisphere suffer from this shortage of recently evolved coniferous forests. A comparison of Australia and New Zealand is of interest in this matter of timber resources. Australia has a total area ot 30,000,000 acres of forests in use against 3,500,000 in New Zealand. Australian timber production is about twice as much as New Zealand timber production, but of course the total demand in Australia is much greater than in New Zealand. New Zealand has established approximately 1,000,000 acres of pine plantations against 600,000 acres established to dale in Australia. Because of the vigorous plantation policy adopted by New Zealand forty years ago New Zealand is now able to export paper products in large quantities to Australia.

So there we have a clear answer to that part of the question. In reply to my query as to whether the expenditure of from £2 million to £3 million on the planting of pulp timber would save Australia about £200 million a year by the end of the century the Minister said -

  1. i am advised that an additional expenditure at the present time of from £A2,000,000 to £A.3,000,000 on the establishment of plantations of recently evolved conifers would be likely to yield forest products, including paper products, with a value of at least £200.000.000 by the end of this century. The relationship quoted by the honorable senator between plantation costs and ultimate financial yield is comparable with the results already obtained from plantations in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, lt is a fact that the current cost of imported timber products in Australia exceeds £A80,000,00, and our forest services state that production from our native forests is about a maximum, lt seems a fair inference that Australia must either increase its expenditure on forests, or face the likelihood of a greatly increased bill for imports.

The Minister was then asked by me -

Will the Government consider advancing moneys to the States to increase our forest areas?

The answer was - i would not wish at this juncture to express any views about Commonwealth policy as regards the financing of forest development.

I am no expert on the timber industry. I am no expert on forests, but in March 1964 1 was able to put to the Minister for National Development that that was what the experts were saying. In March 1964 the position was quite clear that with the passage of the years, by the end of the century we would have cost posterity £200 million. What excuse is there when it was public knowledge that all that was needed to be done was to provide the moneys? We know that forest areas were available because on 8th December 1965 I asked about this matter. The Minister said that about 4.3 million acres of land were suitable and could be made available for softwood timber planting.

Senator Webster:

– How many months ago was that?

Senator MURPHY__ That was in

December 1965. If the honorable senator thinks that only then the information became available, he is quite mistaken, because that type of information has been available for years in the reports of the State forestry departments to anybody such as the honorable senator who exhibits a commendable interest in the subject. If the honorable senator cares to study those reports he will find that the State forestry departments have been asking about the dedication of forests and pointing out their need for money. The Opposition welcomes the Commonwealth Government’s plan to provide money for softwood planting, but we know the parlous condition in which the States are. The Commonwealth Government says: “ Praise us, because to meet this great shortage which has developed in our natural resources and which will worsen, we are to lend $20 million to the Stales over five years “. This is the move for which the Commonwealth seeks our acclamation.

The Commonwealth Government has obviously failed in its duty to the Australian people, lt had the example of New Zealand across the Tasman Sea, which 40 years ago commenced its planting programme. The Commonwealth Government, if it was doing its job properly, must have known that a shortage of timber products was developing all around the world. The Government of India will not allow teak to come here. In future it will be a problem to obtain teak from Burma. All over the world this problem exists. It is the Government’s duty to have this information and prepare for shortages. But what did the Government do? Perhaps an explanation might be found if one looks at the figures for the Forestry and Timber Bureau and sees the way in which this Government conducts its affairs. On 19th October 1965 I asked a question about vacancies in the Forestry and Timber Bureau. The answer showed that of 182 positions in the Bureau, only 147 were filled. There were vacancies for forestry officers, botanists, biologists and others.

A study of the composition of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation shows that there has been very little increase in the number of positions in the section which deals with forest products. It is symptomatic of this Government’s approach that it is not interested in advancing scientific research in Australia. It potters along, keeping up some kind of front, but it is not making any attempt to ensure that scientific research is properly advanced. The Government is making no real attempt to plan for the development of our resources in the way in which it should be planning. The Government says: “ We are faced with a tremendous crisis in the timber industry. Unless we do something, there will be an alarming shortage.”

What about our other resources? Why is there not a continuing study of our natural resources by the Government? Any government worth its salt would be conducting such a study. We will face shortages of other raw materials. People are ripping through our beach sands and selling off the minerals to China, Europe and all over the world. When the Government is asked what are our reserves of these minerals in quantity and time, it is very difficult for it to supply an intelligent answer because it does not know the answer. All the indicators show that many of our natural resources are being exploited in a way which will leave us seriously deficient in the future. It has happened to us before. In the last century, this country was the world’s greatest producer of tin. Now we do not have enough for our domestic needs. This type of situation faces us with many of our natural resources.

I ask Government senators, including Senator Webster: Should we be dealing with our natural resources in this way? Is it not fair to say that the Government ought to be conducting a continuing study of our natural resources and planning for their development? The Government should not say, as if it had happened overnight: “ We are faced with a great shortage which has developed in timber products “. What about our other resources?

Senator Scott:

– What minerals are going to Communist China?

Senator Mattner:

– He said rutile, but that is not right.

Senator MURPHY:

– It is very interesting to hear honorable senators opposite attempting to divert the debate into side issues. The great problem which faces us is simple and easily understood. It is that the Government is failing in its duty to the nation in respect of the development of our natural resources. It has failed in the field of forest products. Senator Webster’s answer is, of course, to leave it to private enterprise until the matter becomes desperate. His analysis shows that in this industry private enterprise is not to be condemned. It has done what it could within the limits of its capacity. Senator Webster instanced a number of firms that wee planting thousands of acres. He contended, contrary to the best estimates that have been given by the Government, that private enterprise was actually planting about 20,000 acres, and not 10,000 acres as we have been told repeatedly by the Government.

Senator Webster:

– My figures are quite right.

Senator MURPHY:

– I suppose that Senator Webster may be better informed than the Government. It would not surprise anyone if the Government had very little knowledge of what is happening in relation to our natural resources. Be that as it may, taking Senator Webster’s argument at its best, private enterprise is in the field and has done its utmost. We say that, at its best, private enterprise is unable to cope with the national necessity. Surely it is demonstration enough that although they are pulling their weight, private enterprise firms are unable to cope with the problem. It is clear that in the matter of natural resources we need the full weight of government. We need public enterprise and the co-operation of the Commonwealth and State Governments in the production of timber and forest products. The great bulk of this work is to be undertaken by the States. They are to plant State forests and to provide for the future in a way that private enterprise is unable to do no matter how commendable its efforts might be.

So we welcome this action by the Government but we say that in many respects its approach to the problem by lending money to the States is a mean approach. lt is to lend the States $20 million over a five year term. No doubt these funds will be supplemented in future by other loans. But is this really the way to deal with the problem? The money should not be lent in this way. We should not be doling it out on a five year basis when the Government, itself believes that the project is a long term one. Why should the States have to deal with this proposal on a five year basis when we know the project really extends over 30 to 40 years? This is no way to plan.

The greatest single failure of this Government has been its failure to plan and to face up to the need for planning. You cannot deal with the development of great natural resources on the basis of annual budgets or even five year loans. We welcome this proposal but we say it is like many of the Government’s actions in that the Government has been finally made to act by force of circumstances. This is another example of the dreadful waste of this Government, lt is a government of wasted years.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 331

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 22nd March (vide page 152), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Senate lake note of the following paper -

Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 22nd March 1966.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) [4.22J. - Last week the Senate spent much lime discussing specifically the situation in Vietnam. Today we have before us a statement read by the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) on behalf of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) covering a wide ambit of international affairs. In the present political climate in Australia, it would be quite unreal to worry about the situation in Uganda or some such place while we are directly concerned with the controversial issue of Vietnam. In particular we are concerned about the action of the Government in making Australia one of the four countries actively assisting the South Vietnamese and, secondly, in breaking all tradition by introducing a system of conscription to maintain Australia’s armed forces in Vietnam.

May I say at once that I appreciate that the conflict- in Vietnam is one of the great dividers of peoples not only in Australia but all over the world that has arisen in decades. I respect these divisions because every one of them is understandable. 1 hope that the Government also understands this. Surely it can understand the feelings of a mother who still has on her hands a sick husband suffering from the effects of service in the Second World War and who sees her son going away to face similar hazards. I can understand those who have been worried about the prospect of international conflict coming closer to Australia. Because I understand these things, I have no intention of throwing the abusive word “ Fascist “ at the Government although I know that in similar circumstances and, indeed, in the current circumstances, it does not hesitate to call the Opposition a bunch of Communists or a bunch of persons who cooperate with the Communists somewhere along the way. This was emphasised when Senator Murphy was discussing the nonpolitical question of pinus radiata in the previous debate. Senator Mattner and Senator Scott were able to find a Communist even behind the white wood trees. They have been finding them behind the red gum trees for years. Today they are able to find a Communist even behind the pinus radiata.

What concerns me is that the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) said that Senator Gorton’s statement should be printed. Although she did no! use the words, I think the Minister would agree that she meant the statement should be made almost compulsory reading. I hope to goodness that does not happen. I would not like to see this hysteria take hold of the Australian people. When Senator Wheeldon was speaking he pointed out that Senator Gorton, in quoting the report of the International Control Commission, had deliberately missed out one of the most important points, deliberately creating the impression that the 1954 rules of the Commission had been broken by one side while completely ignoring a section showing that the rules had been broken in Vietnam by both sides. I was impressed by a statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, who said a few months ago that in times of war and hostility, the first casualty was truth. If truth is the first casualty of Government spokesmen, we will not get an intelligent discussion on this matter.

The Government has much more than political responsibility in this affair. It is the Government of Australia and it has a solemn duty to put the exact facts before the people whether doing so suits the political situation or not. The Minister for Works has a particular responsibility because he represents the Minister for External Affairs in the Senate and is at present Acting Minister for External Affairs. The Minister made great play on Nazi aggression and tried to compare it with Communist aggression today. Anyone who does that, wittingly or unwittingly, falls into a trap because there is no comparison between the Nazi aggression of 30 years ago and Communist aggression today. The Nazis, without any excuse except the desire for world conquest, tried to sweep across Europe. There was no suggestion, for instance, that they were trying to improve the economy of France. They did not say to the French people: “ You have lived all these years under this system; we will do better “, Economic or social problems did not enter into the events of those days. This was naked aggression and the Government of the day put the facts before the Australian people. Australian soldiers volunteered in thousands, making up the biggest army in the world in proportion to population. We were setting out then to protect the status quo. Many of us did not agree with the political and social conditions in Europe, but we were not prepared to say that these should be swept away without any excuse at all except that of naked aggression.

But Communist aggression today is vastly different. We have seen countries fall to Communist aggression and Communist infiltration because the conditions which were permitted to remain were such that the Communists could feed on them and fructify. The situation is vastly different when you say to the people of a country: “There is nothing wrong here but we are going to push you out “. This is the position in Vietnam. On the Government’s own argument, if the domino theory is going to prevail, we get back to the fact that the Government is seeking to protect a position that has existed for thousands of years. We have seen countries fall without a battle because the Communists have been able to convince the people that nothing has been done about a situation while the people for years have faced starvation and hopelessness.

I do not intend to follow the line of many honorable senators who support the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party and talk about -the murder of head men by Communists and how the Communists sweep over a country. That is history and I do not dispute it. These things are happening in north east Thailand today according to the Australian Minister for External Affairs who is visiting that area. So if we extend the Government’s argument we will see Australia sending troops to Thailand in a few weeks. Senator Sim said the United Nations Organisation was not able to do anything in Tibet or Hungary. I did not hear the Liberals say that we ought to take over the role of the United Nations and send troops into these places. When we get into the realm of international affairs we become involved in a pretty tough business. The final thing that we have to face up to is our own national interest.

I pose this question: Where does the Government hope to finish up with this war in Vietnam? As we have tried to point out, the problem that exists in that country cannot be cured by military action alone. We have pointed out the need to direct attention to economic and social conditions. Senator Henty says that the Honolulu conference was a good thing. It was honorable senators opposite who scorned us when we said that in the final analysis we must try to solve the social and economic problems that exist. The greatest casualty in Vietnam has been politics. The question arises as to how a political system can operate in that country. The fatal weakness of the situation in Vietnam is that there is no possibility of a change as a result of political action. If the Buddhists, the Catholics, the trade union movement or the students are discontented with the Ky Government or any other government, the only possibility they have of bringing about a change is by coup or counter-coup. I note that a new word has crept into the vocabulary. I note that people now talk of coupettes. They say that a coup does not need to be complete. They say that it is not necessary to knock over the head of the government, but that changes can be brought about in the lower echelons by staging demi-coups or coupettes

Surely if we think about the problem of Vietnam we must reach the stage where we ask what we are finally going to do about the whole thing. There is simply no provision in South Vietnam to bring about a change of government. If we fly- the flag of democracy, if we decide to go into Vietnam as we have done as a result of the action of this Government, and if we intend to send conscripts there to die, surely we ought to be able to say that the system that is now in operation in that country is not the one that will bring about the things we want. The existence of the present system is understandable. Vietnam has had a Confucian type background; there has been no such thing as a loyal Opposition. In English history we refer to the divine right of kings, but in this part of Asia the authority of the leaders has been regarded as being a mandate from Heaven. They have subscribed to the oriental saying that if you win the battle for power you become an emperor but if you lose you become a bandit. Under such a system there is no possibility of having a loyal Opposition. If one has a mandate from Heaven, it is rather difficult to expect to have a loyal Opposition which would face up to Heaven itself.

That is the situation that exists in Vietnam. Under the existing system somebody takes control as a result of a coup, a counter-coup or a demi-coup. Then in a few months’ time the question may arise as to whether anything ought to be done with that person. When all is said and done, every government in the world ought to have an Opposition. Every government in the world eventually dies. It is necessary to establish some system whereby those who are discontented may give expression to their thoughts. Vietnam itself is a very expressive place. When the French were there, the students at their chemistry lessons used to load the bombs that were used against the French. The Vietnamese have become politically minded, but they lack the opportunity to express their political aims.

One of the accusations I level against the present Australian Government is that, although it has decided to participate in military operations in Vietnam, it has been peculiarly silent about its aims. It has never offered any criticism of some of the actions of our allies. We have never been able to get it to state clearly what are the instructions in regard to such matters as the handling of prisoners of war. Unless we say to the people of South Vietnam that we are fighting with the thought in mind that eventually an election will be held, and unless the stage is reached where people are trained in the art of politics, this fight will be rather futile. The Buddhists, or those who refer to themselves as being Buddhists, account for 15 million people or about three-quarters of the population. They are very much anti-Communist. One of the accusations they level against the dictators or military leaders in Vietnam is that they are not sufficiently antiCommunist. The Catholic minority, which accounts for a little more than 1* million of the population, speaks with a voice which is probably much stronger than its numbers would suggest. That is largely because the education system used by the French was a Catholic system and because these people have important positions in the Army, the police and the civil service. They are tremendously anti-Communist, many of them having fled from the north in the first place.

A new political force has come into being since about 1959 or I960. When Army coups started to occur, they were promoted at about the second echelon. The old generals had been very loyal to Diem. Also in Vietnam are other religious sects which are very much anti-Communist but which are fragmented. Then there is the trade union movement which is controlled autocratically but which so far has kept out of politics. It is very much antiCommunist in outlook and at the moment it shows signs of being more politically minded than are many of the other organisations. Then come the students who show a keen political interest and who probably run closer to the Communists. Probably they have a ,i w’: libera, outlook towards the world political situation than have the other groups. But if an election were held tomorrow morning, the only people who would be organised or who would know what they wanted would be the very forces that we are trying to destroy - the Communists. Surely the idea behind fighting this war is completely to repel the invader and to bring about a situation in which an election can be held. I assume that is what the Government wants to achieve eventually. 1 assume that the Government wants to ensure that the South Vietnamese shall be able to establish their own government free of soldiers and free from pressure from any other country. Surely we are on common ground, in that respect.

If an election were to be held tomorrow, what would be the outcome, with a complete fragmentation of people who might be able to form political parties and with only one unified party? What would be the position if there was a Communist victory at the election? The Government is crying out for the containment of Communism. It has reversed the procedures that have been adopted in the past for the recruitment of servicemen and has decided to conscript some of the youth of Australia to fight in Vietnam, lt has done this because it is trying to contain Communism. But what will the Government tell the brothers and sisters of the conscripts who die in Vietnam if, after victory ‘ is gained, an election is held and is won by the Communists because they are the only ones sufficiently organised to fight an election?

There is a marked difference between the two forms of aggression that were mentioned by Senator Gorton. There is a vast difference between Nazi aggression and a war, as yet undeclared, against Communist aggression, as the Government has described it. We should not be fighting for the status quo in places such as Vietnam. Maintenance of the status quo will make the existence of Communism throughout Asia certain. We have a long history of democracy; we know a lot about it. Unless we make it possible to change the form of government in Vietnam sci that opposition voices may be heard without a coup having to be staged and without using the gun and the jackboot, we will be fighting in vain. If South Vietnam were a Communist country, members of the

Liberal Party and the Austraiian Country

Party would be the first people to condemn the system 1 have been talking about. They would condemn a system under which elections are not possible and under which the voice of opposition cannot be heard. Yet today we hear not one word from the Government.

This is the very situation that the Government is defending. The Government says that it must go to the extent of sending conscripts to Vietnam. What is the Government fighting for? It wants to think a little more about that question and not merely say that as long as we pour troops into Vietnam, as long as somebody is asking for us and as long as the Americans arc there, we are going to achieve the results that we desire. The Government will not get anywhere by perpetuating such a system. lt will not get anywhere by evading the truth. We will not get anywhere by being brutal to enemy prisoners of war. We have never been able to ascertain from the Government the instructions that are given to Australian soldiers on the handling of prisoners of war, or what it has said to our allies on their treatment of prisoners of war. I have seen on television in Australia some shocking scenes of brutal treatment being meted out to the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong. Whatever political tag we give them, they have feelings and can be hurt just as we can. These scenes are being shown by our own television stations in Australia. They should be con-‘ demned by the Australian Government, notwithstanding the fact that it is not the major partner in South Vietnam today.

I want to refer to the case of Gunner O’Neill only to make one point. Everybody knows that once a person is caught for an offence that may not be the only offence which has been committed. In this case a senior officer did not know that he was doing wrong when he handed out brutal treatment to O’Neill. I do not know what offence O’Neill committed. I am not trying to protect him. But if he committed a crime in the Army, he should have gone before a court martial. He should have been properly represented before that tribunal and he should have been properly sentenced. No credit has been brought to the Army by the brutal treatment that was given to O’Neill. I shudder at this, because if we are going to treat our own people in this way, what chance have we of getting our soldiers to. adopt decent methods and to do all the other things that have been written into the Geneva Convention when they are dealing with prisoners that fall into their hands? Democratic people and people who believe that they have something better to offer than Communism should not treat the enemy in this way.

I would like the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) to answer this question when he replies to the debate: Has an examination been made of the whole judicial system throughout the Australian Army and the Australian armed forces? Are the rumours correct that when somebody is reported by a non-commissioned officer and sentenced, the punishment is inflicted by the officer who reported him? No State Government would allow a policeman who arrested a man to have the right to punish him. I am afraid that these things are happening in the Australian Army today. It appears to me that the Gunner O’Neill case was part of the normal practice in the Army, but something slipped out in spite of the clamp that this Government places on people. It tells them that they must not make any statement. I want to know whether the Australian Government has checked its judicial system. Has it had a look, to see whether or not this was an isolated case? I suggest very seriously to the Government that it was not an isolated case.

As I said earlier, I do not want to go into the details of the history of this conflict because it would not help us very much at this stage. The crux of the situation is that this Government has committed Australia as one of only four countries in the world which are providing fighting forces with which to assist the South Vietnamese. The second point is that we have broken an Australian tradition without getting a mandate from the Australian people. The Government has broken a tradition by conscripting people, and conscripting them by means of a roulette wheel system. We sit here in the Senate and listen to people like the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) telling us of the tremendous threat that the conflict in Vietnam poses. We hear it said that not only will South Vietnam fall, but that many other Asian countries also will fall and that this will mean the establishment of Communism throughout the Pacific, including New Zealand and Australia. If that is true, and if the Government believes that it is true, it should be doing more than it is doing in this regard. One thing contradicts the other. On the one hand, the Government adopts this roulette wheel or marbles system, as Senator O’Byrne reminds me, to conscript 20 year olds into the armed forces for service overseas to meet this threat, and on the other hand, it refers to the magnitude of the threat. Both things cannot be right. There is a contradiction there.

We hear it said time and time again that after South Vietnam falls, Malaysia will fall, then the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan and any other country of which we can think in the Pacific. But the people in these countries do not seem to be taking the threat as seriously as we. do, because none of them has an armed force in South Vietnam today. I suppose that we know more than they do about running their countries. I suppose that we know more than they do about the threat that is confronting them. Every one of these countries has suffered occupation by enemy forces. Australia has never had that experience. I direct attention to the tremendous contradiction in the Government’s attitude. Of course, I have never seen the Government face up to a foreign affairs or an international affairs debate without trying to hang the “Com “ tag around the neck of the Australian Labour Party in an endeavour to win more votes in Australia. I have never seen the Government come forward with an objective analysis of what this situation means to world peace and to the Australian nation.

Senator Wright was growlingly eloquent on this aspect. He said: “ Do we want America to conscript its youth to go to Vietnam but not conscript our own youth? “ There are two points here. One is that we are saying to the Government: “ Don’t slavishly follow America in everything that it does because it will not respect you for it. Nobody will respect you for slavishly following America.” We want the situation where we can stand on our own feet and relieve the Americans of some of their responsibilities, both in the field of foreign aid and in the other things in which it is interested. The Government is not- a true partner of America unless it does that. But more important, the whole system of the Army in America has been based on conscription. America is doing nothing new at the present time. This is the system it has adopted. I do not criticise the American Government, but 1 criticise the Australian Government because this has never been our system. In two world wars we have produced some of the most magnificent fighting men in the world. .We have produced armies which have been considerably larger than those of other nations when we take the population question into consideration.

Senator Gair said that we introduced conscription. He also said that Borneo is not very far from South Vietnam. But there is a marked difference here. When the Australian Government was previously faced with the question of conscription - and again it was a period when Australia was in partnership with America - not only were bombs being rained on Australian soil, but there was physical occupation of the Territories of Australia. Surely the Government had to do something radical at that stage. Do not forget the fact that when we did call On America in those days, the present supporters of the Government, or their predecessors, hammered the daylights out of Curtin and accused him of turning his back on England and trash of that sort. As I have said, at that stage our Territories were being occupied.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– If the honorable senator had not been listening to the tinkling of cow bells and had been listening to what I have been saying, he would realise the import of what I am saying. Honorable senators opposite speak of this threat. They do not believe in it. They say they believe in it only because their masters have told them that they have to believe in it. They do not honestly believe in it. Even if they did. what is the answer? Is it to call up one-third of the 20 year old youths in Australia? If the threat is as great as the Government says it is, then a greater effort is needed from it.

Reference has. been made to Tibet. A terrible thing took place in Tibet. Communist aggression and genocide took place. I did not hear anything from the Government at that time. I did not hear it say that we should go to Tibet and repel the aggression. I did not hear the Government say anything on the Hungarian situation. Yet Senator Gorton says that, not only do we want to contain Communism, but we want to meet the threat wherever it occurs. The answer is that the Government does not always do such things. It is only doing it on this occasion because it suits it to do so. The Government has made a complete mess of the situation, and now it is trying to wriggle out of it.

Another very interesting and amusing thing Senator Wright said the other day was that we were using a terrible meaning of the word “ conscription “ and trying to give it the connotation of 1916. He is a very well educated fellow and I am a simple chap so I went to the dictionary to find out what the word “ conscript “ means. It means to enlist compulsorily, to compel to military service by conscription, or one compulsorily enlisted for military service. All I can ask is: What the devil else can one call them except conscripts? Referring again to the Government’s evasion of the truth, I point out that the Government wants us to reverse even the meaning of words to get it out of the situation into which it has finally got itself.

Senator McClelland:

– -The Minister lor Supply used the word himself the other night.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Of course, and Senator Laught used it the other day when asking a question. I commend him because he was making an honest approach to the situation and was not being a humbug. Senator Sim referred, as many other people do, to the moral fibre of the Australian people. He said he was completely confident of the moral fibre of the Australian people and that when they found out what the war was all about - surely it is lime they found out because the Vietnam war has not been going on for only three months - he was confident they would back the Government. He said he trusts the. moral fibre of the Australian people. But the Liberal Party is distrusting the moral fibre of the Australian people. Every other Australian government has trusted the moral fibre of the Australian people. In the past governments have gone openly to the people and told them what the situation was. No government had any trouble in getting volunteers for the armed forces, even for an obscure situation such as that which existed in Korea. That was not an easy situation for Australians to grasp because we were accustomed to European wars. The Government is mistrusting the people. It is not game to go before them and ask them to approve conscription because it knows that it has meandered into conscription against the advice of its military advisers, as was admitted by the then Minister for the Army, Dr. Forbes-

Senator Sim:

– Now, now.

Senator WILLESEE:

– It is recorded in “ Hansard “ and if the honorable senator wants to look it up, he can. He has not been here very long and apparently he has not been doing much research since he came here. Everyone knows that conscription was introduced against the advice of the Government’s military advisers. Sir Robert Menzies never once said he was acting on the advice of his military advisers. He merely said: “ We have decided “. This has been said time and time again.

The Government is distrusting the moral fibre of the Australian people. It has miscalculated on this issue. It has done a terrible thing in reversing the whole attitude in Australia towards military service. It has introduced conscription without a mandate from the Australian people, and the moment the Government is game to go to an election we will ask the Australian people -for a mandate to remove conscription.

Senator MORRIS:
Queensland

.- Senator Willesee has quite properly, I believe, pointed out the many difficulties and problems which exist in this very troubled part of the world today. No one on the Government side seeks to minimise these difficulties and problems but I say positively that the Government is courageously facing up to them and is taking the only possible action to overcome them.

I should like to comment on some of Senator Willesee’s remarks, particularly his reference to the case of Gunner O’Neill. He referred to it as an instance of brutality. Whether that is the correct way to describe

Gunner O’Neill’s treatment, I do not propose to analyse at the moment. What I did not like was the honorable senator’s statement that because this has happened once we can take it for granted that it is not an isolated instance and it must be symptomatic of the state of the Army at the present time. That is going a little too far altogether. Senator Willesee and many other people in this chamber served for many years in the armed forces, and I ask them whether they have ever witnessed any brutality such as was described by the honorable senator. Has there ever been any occasion on which we have had reason to be ashamed of the action of our own defence leaders? I defy the honorable senator to give one example. This is an isolated incident. Even now we do not know the whole story and I do not think it is desirable to discuss it. I am not prepared to accept newspaper reports of the incident and I will wait until we get a factual statement about it. No-one on this side of the House, and I would hope no-one on the opposite side, would tolerate brutality under any circumstances. To suggest that this incident is symptomatic of the health of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force is being too. ridiculous for words.

Most of Senator Willesee’s case was well thought out and well presented and, I believe, represented his honest attitude towards this problem, but I do not want it to be thought that I agree with a deal of what he said. He sadly spoiled his case when he made his reference to the health of the Services. He also tried to make great play on Senator Wright’s comments in relation to the word “ conscription “. I think we all know pretty well what the word means. Anyone who listened to Senator Wright’s comments would thoroughly understand them. He said that the word “ conscription “ had gained such unpopularity and almost hatred during the Second World War as a result of the actions of the Government of the day that we should not apply it to the present situation and risk engendering the same kind of feeling as was engendered in those years. That was the case Senator Wright presented. For Senator Willesee to try to make great play on the interpretation of Senator Wright’s comments is too silly for words.

Last week this chamber debated a statement by the Prime Minister on the general economy of the nationalities we all know, the present debate is on the more restricted question of Australia’s approach to foreign affairs, and our remarks must be directed exclusively tothat aspect. I join with Senator Willesee in saying thatI do not think we can thoroughly examine the question now before us unless we fully realise the changes which have occurred in the postwar period, first, in international alliances and in international spheres of influence, and secondly, in the overwhelmingly more important role which the Department of External Affairs is called upon to play today compared with its task at the end of the Second World War. At the beginning of the Second World War we were relatively isolated from every other country. We were isolated from the theatres of war and, to a great degree, from world problems. As a result of modern scientific and technical developments, all countries are virtually neighbours. Our situation, therefore, has changed enormously and the responsibilities of the Department of External Affairs have grown commensurately.

Let us look at the international situation at the end of the Second World War, only 21 years ago. Since then the British Empire, as it was then known, has virtually disappeared as an empire. At the same time, in the intervening 21 years the Communist world has steadily extended its sphere of influence until today more than one-third of the world is behind either the iron curtain or the bamboo curtain. These are facts which cannot be controverted. It is not a matter, as Senator Willesee said, of us thinking of hundreds of years of history. We have to think of the developments which have taken place in our own lifetime. Some people say that the fact that one third of the world has come under Communist influence is not the business of Australia. Some people say that we should keep out of discussions such as this. I disagree with that. I believe it is our business. I believe we have to take this fact into consideration. I believe particularly that Australia’s Department of External Affairs must take it into consideration because we have been told time and time again - and none of us can say that we have not had sufficient warning - that although this Communist philosophy has grown so much the Communists are not at all satisfied with the degree to which it has extended. The Communists have told us time and time again that their objective is to achieve world domination and to spread the doctrine of Communism throughout the world.

These are not just statements of imagination. They are statements of fact. We know perfectly well that on many occasions the Communists have said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun and that war is the highest form of struggle. The leader of Communist China said only a little while ago - and these are very significant words - that Australia is the great southland heritage of the Asian people. Are we going to disregard these threats? Are we going to take no notice of them? Are we going to be isolationists during the period of growth of this philosophy in the world? I think that to do so would be completely unrealistic.

Having said that the Communist philosophy has spread through more than onethird of the world, I would like to examine for a brief moment what it means to that third of the world. I am not going to talk about the loss of many of the freedoms. I am not going to try to particularise. But in this area that has been taken over by Communism the people have no voice in the election of their Government. They have no right of free Christian worship. Most of their other rights have been taken from them and, so far as the Communists are concerned, those rights will never be returned. I ask myself - and I hope many people also are asking themselves this questionhas any Christian nation the right to remain isolationist and permit this type of degenerate philosophy to come closer and closer to our shores? I believe this is the question that Australia must answer.I hate to see any Australian running away from it, dodging it and fearing to answer it.

It is because I believe that this Government Is facing up to these problems, evaluating them and looking at them realistically, that I strongly support the statement made on international affairs by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) which is under debate now. I believe our policy is a realistic one and that it is aimed at giving Australia. Jong term security. I would like to quote a few brief extracts from the Minister’s speech because as it was made about a fortnight ago there may be some who have forgotten it. The Minister said -

This struggle to save freedom in Asia is the struggle of the whole of the free world.

In other words, that is what I have been trying to say. At another place the Minister stated -

The real risk lies not in the fear of provoking Communist aggression; lt lies in any failure to block it. The damage to the principles on which alone peace can be founded is done by neglecting them, not by applying them.

Finally, at another point in his speech, he said -

If we hold on with courage lo resist aggression while pursuing positive policies of political and economic development we shall win through. 1 think those words summarise the attitude taken by the Department of External Affairs. That is the attitude we must pursue if we are going to attend to the security of Australia. I say - and I say it rather sadly - that if we do not stop aggression now and do not take concerted action with our allies, we will not be trying to defend ourselves from Communist aggression on foreign shores but we will be trying to defend ourselves from Communist aggression on our own shores.

I hope that the Australian people will examine the whole situation and the contemporary history of this struggle. I hope that they will examine the history of the last 50 years to see how Communism has become an ever greater menace to us. I am satisfied that there are many people in Australia who have not yet got down to the grass roots of the problem and are not considering it as an overall Australian problem but are merely considering it as an emotional problem. I do not believe there are any true Australians who, fully realising the dangers of creeping Communism, would choose to remain isolationists. I do not believe that they would ever be in favour of a policy of appeasement. Australians have shown in World War I, in World War II, in Korea and in other places that they do not believe in appeasement. Other countries are showing it also today. I think that this trait is symptomatic of the Australian character.

Having set out what 1 believe is the threat which faces us I think we have to come closer to home. I think we now have the duty of examining the viewpoint of the Government and comparing it with that of the Opposition which is, of course, the alternative Government. If we do this we will see that the policy of the Government and that of the Opposition are diametrically opposed - that is where a clear policy on the part of the Opposition is discernible. Over the last 10 or 15 years this Government has followed a consistent policy and a consistent course. I say just as emphatically that the Australian Labour Party gets tangled up when it tries to determine a policy on foreign affairs. I do not suggest that honorable senators opposite should take my word for this.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We do not.

Senator MORRIS:

– I have no doubt that Senator Cavanagh will not accept my word so I suggest to him that he should read the speech made by the Federal President of the Australian Labour Party which was reported in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ on 6th August last year. I will quote the words of the Federal President during a debate at the Sydney Conference of the Party. He said -

We are likely to get tangled up as we often do when we discuss foreign affairs.

If they are not satisfied that that explains the situation so far as the Labour Party is concerned, I refer honorable senators to a paper written and delivered by the General Secretary of the Australian Labour Party, Mr. Wyndham, in December last to the Young Labour Association at Noosa Heads, Queensland. After being delivered to that group, the paper was then officially issued in Canberra. Honorable senators opposite will be able to get copies of this paper. Mr. Wyndham said -

If we continue to prevaricate over policy, indulge in the futile exercise of factional strife and behave like a collection of political delinquents, we will continue to drive people from us.

That is precisely what members of the Labour Party are doing. They do not know where they stand on domestic or internal issues; they do not know where they stand on external issues.

Senator Sandford:

– We did in the Dawson by-election.

Senator MORRIS:

– It is no good trying to argue with me about this. Honorable senators opposite are all as glum as it is possible for anybody to be, because of the problems that they have today. It is no use their running away from those problems. To many people it is quite understandable that members of the Labour Party should be in such a dilemma. Their leaders have Jed them along not only by contradicting themselves almost every time they speak but also by being completely inconsistent on almost every occasion. I have not the time today to go into that subject. I refer anybody who wants to see the details to the speeches that were made by Senators Gorton, Anderson and Sim. They were brilliant expositions of the basic contradictions that are characteristic of the whole Labour Party. Members of the public know about those inconsistencies. Let me remind honorable senators opposite of a few of them.

There is probably no Australian who does not know that over the past 10 years members of the Labour Party have contradicted themselves a dozen times on what they believe Australia’s defence policy should be. Every week they continue to do so. Let us think for a moment of the controversy over the purchase of a fighter-bomber for the Royal Australian Air Force. In 1963 the Leader of the Labour Party stumped the platform in every State in Australia, condemning almost madly the Australian Government for purchasing the TFX, which is now the FIIIA, and advocating the purchase of the TSR2. That was one of his main points of argument. What an awful mess Australia would have been in if we had followed Labour policy on that matter. The Labour Party has bitterly attacked the Government over the reintroduction of national service. Yet the Labour Party knows that it has done more to deter voluntary enlistment than have all other factors put together and has done even more damage than have all the difficulties that can be brought forward. If we did not have national service we would not be able today to put more than two battalions into the field. If that is what the Labour Party wants - it is very difficult to know what it does want - then it wants to leave Australia naked and unprotected. Only a little while ago Senator Willesee was saying that the Labour Party has always been opposed to conscription. Yet only last week we heard

Senator McManus telling the Senate and giving documentary evidence that conscription, as it was called so clearly at that stage, was introduced in 1908 by the then Labour Government and was introduced again in the early 1940’s by another Labour Government. Yet members of the Labour Party try to tell us that they are anticonsriptionist. Why cannot they be a little consistent in their arguments? Let me take this matter of conscription a little further. Members of the Labour Party have demonstrated throughout the years that their whole industrial policy is based on conscription. Yet they try to tell us that theirs is an anticonscriptionist party. What a lot of bunkum they talk.

All of these inconsistencies of the Labour Party are the inevitable follies of a party that does not know where it is going. As 1 said before, it is split asunder on internal issues. I suppose aid for education is one of the main matters in issue in that sphere. Honorable senators opposite cannot deny that. The Labour Party is also split asunder on external policies. What hope have members of the Labour ‘ Party of uniting the nation when they cannot even unite themselves? The matters of which I. have spoken are follies. I suppose one could call them witless follies, if one liked. But, unfortunately, the Labour Party does not stop at mere follies. Many of its leaders arc going much further. Expressing it in the mildest possible way, many of its leaders are inciting impressionable young Australians io irregularities and to near-treason. They are giving positive support to the youth of this country blindly following Communist agitators. Honorable senators opposite cannot deny that, ls anyone in this chamber or any member of the Australian public naive enough to believe that the demonstrations which we see breaking out in all paris of the country are spontaneous expressions of the normal Australian outlook? Of course they are not. Let me give the Senate an example of this.

Only last week there was a demonstration, if you like to use that phrase - in fact, only a handful of less attractive students at the University of Queensland took part in it - against what some people are pleased to call conscription. These students handed out leaflets. I have one of them in my hand. It is signed by a Barry Robinson, lt is headed “ Youth Campaign Against Conscription “. The sub-heading reads: “ Reference: Draft Card Burning “. The relevant parts of it read -

You have no doubt followed the conscription plans of our Government quite clearly . . .

I feel that drastic action must be taken in protest against this infringement of personal liberty of conscripts.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Hear, hear!

Senator MORRIS:

– Who said that?

Senator Cavanagh:

– 1 did.

Senator MORRIS:

– There we have it. The honorable senator comes out and supports these Communist front organisations which are inciting the youth of Australia

Senator O’Byrne:

– There is a Commo under the desk.

Senator MORRIS:

– I know that this is hurting honorable senators opposite. They are supporting Communist front organisations which are inciting the youth of Australia lo break the law and to commit near treason, although they cannot even manage their own affairs. The pamphlet continues-

Senator Cavanagh:

– The youths have no alternative.

Senator MORRIS:

– 1 intend to finish reading this pamphlet, no matter what the honorable senator says, lt continues -

I am calling for a mass draft card burning to coincide with Project Vietnam on March 16lh.

As you are, or have been, a conscript and must have possession of a .draft card, 1 call upon you lo join in this protest. Irrespective of whether you have been deferred or arc still awaiting advice, your draft card burning is essential at this lime.

What is that if. it is nol incitement of the youth of Australia? If they were left to their own devices, they would be proud of their loyalty to their country and of their opportunity to defend it, and would not be putting on demonstrations at the behest of these Communist front organisations which honorable senators opposite seem so very anxious to protect. The strange thing about some honorable senators opposite is that when we talk to them personally they seem to be very reasonable men, but when they discuss Communist activities they seem to change their whole character. The thing that seems to appeal to them is protecting Communist front organisations. Frankly, 1 cannot understand it. My own view is that probably not more than one in a thousand young Australian men are willingly entering into this type of activity, and the ones who do enter into it would not do so but for the incitement by members of the Labour Party.

Unfortunately, too many people are not even aware of the basic facts of national service. In a letter published in today’s “ Courier-Mail “, someone writes that he has sympathy with the national servicemen because there are some people who believe “ that killing is a moral issue and that they should not be forced to take this action if it be against their conscience “. Obviously he does not even know the provisions of the National Service Act, because if one refers to section 29a, sub-sections (1.), (2.) and (5.) and section 29b, one finds that it is possible for anyone with conscientious objections - not only on religious grounds but on any grounds - to seek exemption from national service. Why is it that instead of inciting the young men of Australia to break the law and to go very close to treason, honorable senators opposite do not tell them the facts and explain that there is provision for anyone to seek exemption from national service if he is a real conscientious objector? Honorable senators opposite know these provisions of the Act. Why do they not tell the young men about them?

The time has come when this emotionalism which is being introduced into this debate and into the general Australian scene is doing only a disservice to Australia - lo the young men of Australia in particular - and to the future security of this country. Before I close I will refer to a leading article in today’s issue of the “ Sydney Morning Herald “, a newspaper which, as I think honorable senators opposite realise, has not supported us very strongly. It points out - and every line is factual - that Australia’s obligation today is very great and that we could not fulfil it but for the introduction of national service. It points out - and unfortunately this is so true - (hat the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), plays on family fears and that concern for national safety appears to be outweighed by considerations of electoral advantage in his mind and those of his motley flock. Those, arc the facts. This smokescreen, and all this nonsense that we hear, come from the Australian Labour Party for political purposes. Thank Heaven that the Australian people have too much commonsense to be blindly misled by this type of propaganda.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– One of the most dramatic changes that have taken place in Australian public life over the past 25 years has been in the part that discussions on foreign policy play in debates. Until 25 years ago discussions on foreign policy were very cursory and rather insignificant and played a much lesser part in argument and disputation in our community than did disputes on domestic issues. But over the past quarter century we have seen a sudden upsurge of interest in foreign affairs among the Australian people, in the Australian Parliament and in Australian political parties. This has taken place mainly because of the change in the relationships between Australia and the rest of the British Commonwealth. No longer are we a colony bound to England, which determined the course she would follow in her relations with other countries and expected Australia to follow automatically.

It is a rather new experience for Australia, and one which has taken place in my own relatively short lifetime, that Australians have suddenly been faced with the necessity to determine the very complex issues which have baffled so many statesmen throughout the world for so many centuries. It is probably rather unfortunate for Australians and for Australian politicians that they have suddenly had this responsibility thrust upon them at a time when the issues involved in foreign policy are much more involved than they have ever been and also when the stakes are much higher than they have ever been.

It is only since the explosion of the first atom bomb in 1945 that man has had in his possession weapons capable of destroying our civilisation, our cities and perhaps all humanity. It is within that framework that the Australian people have to deal with the issues which confront us at the present time. I believe that If we are to deal with these problems we have to deal with them seriously. It is no use dealing with them as Senator Morris has just dealt with them - by throwing insults across the floor of the Senate and by saying that the people on the other side are associated with Com munism or are connected with some subversive group, in the hope that some of the mud will stick and that some political advantage will be gained from doing this. The issues are much too great, the stakes are much too high and the problems much too serious to be dealt with in this cavalier and flippant fashion.

Although I do not want to say a great deal about what Senator Morris said, I think there are one or two points upon which I should comment. One of them is his suggestion that the Australian Labour Party is grossly divided at the present time; that there are serious rifts inside the Party and that we do not know how to face the ques-tions he has referred to this evening. It would be quite foolish for me or for anybody else to deny that there are great debates going on at the present time within the Labour Party and that there are considerable areas of disagreement between members of the Party. That is always the case with parties that are trying to bring about social change. If a party’s policy is to keep things as they are, there is not much about which to disagree, but, if it is trying to introduce changes, its members obviously will disagree about what sort of changes should be made and the rate at which they are to be brought about. But on the issue that has been referred to by Senator Morris - the conscription of Australian youth to serve in Vietnam - I think that I and any other member of the Australian Labour Party can say that, whatever disagreements there are among us on other issues, there is no disagreement whatsoever on that issue. The Parliamentary Labour Party and the entire Labour movement are unanimously resolved to oppose with every means available to us the effort to send young Australian men into the jungles of Vietnam. There is not the slightest dispute about that. We are completely unanimous in opposing this policy.

I think that rather than refer to what Senator Morris said it would be more profitable for me to refer to the statement by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck), the keystone of whose argument was that, in the circumstances in which Australia finds itself at present, we cannot be isolated. He stressed the fact that Australia should not be isolated and that it should enter into all sorts of satisfactory arrangements and alliances with other countries. This is beyond dispute but what I think is open to some sort of challenge is the type of alliance or arrangement that we should enter into with other countries, lt is no use looking at this question to see how loyal we arc going to prove ourselves to some foreign power. The proper basis on which to examine this question is to determine whether our policies are of benefit to Australia and the Australian people and not whether they are of benefit to America and the American people or to any other country.

The present Government and its predecessors have not, of course, been believers in an independent foreign policy for Australia. For many years they servilely followed the policies of British governments. Whatever was good enough for Whitehall was good enough for Australia. We have seen that even in quite recent years when, under the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, Australia placed itself in some quite ludicrous situations. For instance, in the Suez crisis, the then Prime Minister acted as a sort of messenger boy for the Suez Canal users’ association and the British Government in his unsuccessful foray into Cairo. We saw, during the Second World War, the criticisms made of the Australian Labour Party under Mr. Chifley and Dr. Evatt. They were criticised because in 1942 they were not prepared slavishly to adhere to the policies of the United Kingdom Government, but were then prepared to enter into alliances with the United States of America for the benefit of this country. We are seeing much the same thing at present. With the decline of the United Kingdom the Commonwealth Government is no longer able to say that whatever the British Government does is good enough for us. After all, at present a Labour Government is in office in Great Britain and it may come up with some unsatisfactory answers. The Commonwealth Government is now saying: “ We must look around for some big brother. There must be some country whose very word will be law for us.” It has selected the United States of America.

There is a great deal to be said for the United States of America. It has been a very good friend lo this country on many occasions in the past, but I do not believe that it is good enough to say that merely because the United States wants to do something, that should be good enough for Australia. It is now time for Australia itself to determine what is in our best interests. Irrespective of whether we happen to disagree with the United States of America or with any other country, however powerful or friendly it is, the Government should follow the proper course for this country.

The major issue confronting us at present is Vietnam. We are to provide a certain number of Australian troops - 4.500 or thereabouts - to serve in the conflict against the Vietcong in South Vietnam. We have been told that we must follow this course because it is the policy of the United States of America. We have been told thai there are two factors. One is that we must stop the downward thrust of Communism by going to South Vietnam, but how 4,500 troops could stop the downward thrust of anything is beyond my comprehension. The main reason that we must send troops to Vietnam, we are told, is that we are allies of the United States and must work together with that country. 1 submit that this argument suffers from a basic misconception as to the state of present international relations. The argument seems to bc that the world is divided into two great blocs and if you do not belong to one of those blocs, you are placed in a dangerous situation where you are subject to the attacks and depredations of anybody who might have designs upon your country. We are told that a Communist bloc is engaging in this downward thrust. On the other hand is the free world, as it is called, which includes some countries which are free and some countries which are not so free, lt is the duty and obligation of the Australian Government to see that we adhere very firmly to the Western bloc, it is said, which is the free world bloc.

The whole argument is based on the misconception that we are still living in (he same cold war period that existed for five or ten years immediately following the end of the second world war. At that time it could well have been said that there were two major blocs - the Eastern and Western blocs - with a certain number of nations such as India which were uncommitted. But there has been a tremendous change in the relationship between the countries of the world since that time. On the one hand, there has been a great disagreement between the Soviet Union and Communist China. It is no longer possible to talk about one monolithic Communist bloc which must be faced. There are a number of sharp disagreements and tensions within those countries which have Communist Governments.

The split began away back in 1948 when a dispute arose -between Tito and Stalin. It reached its peak with the very heated and violent antagonism which exists between Communist China and the Soviet Union. Not only does the Government seem to fail to appreciate the -issues involved in that dispute, but it also fails to offer any sort of rational explanation of what is going on and of what sort of role Australia should be playing in the changes which have taken place in Asia because of the disagreement between the Soviet Union and China. We merely hear a glib reminder that we are opposed to the Communists who are evil, and so on. It is not sufficient, and there has been no analysis of the real situation of the countries . which have Communist Governments

On the other hand, disagreements have occurred within what was previously the monolithic Western world. For many years France, despite changes of Government, had been one of the most loyal members of the Atlantic alliance; in fact, the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation were in Paris. General de Gaulle has been President of France for several years. I do not think even the most irrational supporter of the Government would say that General de Gaulle is a Communist or a Communist sympathiser. What he has done recently is of the greatest importance and significance for the Australian people, as it is for the people of France. He has said that a tremendous change is taking place in the relationships between the countries of the world and it is against the interests of France to have that country completely committed to the policy of the United States of America. The French Government has said that no longer will N.A.T.O. troops in France be under the command of foreign officers. They will be under the command only of officers of the French armed forces.

At the same time, France has broken from the American policy of refusing to recognise the Government of Communist China. It has recently recognised that Government and has evicted Nationalist Chinese diplomatic representatives from the Chinese Embassy in Paris. The French Government has engaged in all sorts of negotiations and discussions with the Soviet Union and has said that no longer can it be relied on merely to echo whatever words may be uttered in Washington. This, I believe, is an important and fundamental change. In the same manner as the dispute between Communist China and Russia has shown a dissolution of the former monolithic Communist bloc, the dispute between France and the United States of America has shown a dissolution of the former monolithic western bloc.

I submit that it is absurd to talk in simplified, easy terms about there being a great struggle going on in the world today between Communists and non-Communists. Struggles are going on between Communists and Communists, and between nonCommunists and non-Communists. Situations are arising such as the dispute over the border between India and Communist China. In that dispute the Soviet Union, a Communist country, was supporting India, and China, a Communist country, was opposing India. That is the type of situation in which we find ourselves at present.

Senator Cormack:

– On the analogy you have stated of General de Gaulle, should we leave the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I believe that our whole relationship in A.N.Z.U.S. should be subject to some scrutiny. I do not believe that the A.N.Z.U.S. type of treaty arrangement can properly be related to N.A.T.O. As I understand A.N.Z.U.S, it is a defensive treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Certainly General de Gaulle’s understanding of N.A.T.O. - possibly Senator Cormack has a better understanding - was that it was not a defensive treaty. It was a treaty which unified and amalgamated a number of Western countries into a solid bloc, and to that he was opposed. I do not believe that it would follow from General de Gaulle’s attitude that we should leave A.N.Z.U.S. or treaties of that nature, lt is a particular type of treaty such as that of N.A.T.O., to which General de Gaulle is directing his attention.

I am not advocating here the point of view adopted by General de Gaulle. I am not commenting that it is a good or a bad point of view. I am merely pointing out the attitude that has been adopted by General de Gaulle. 1 would disagree with him a great deal. For example, I do not agree with his refusal to sign the nuclear test ban treaty and his decision to conduct tests of atomic weapons in the Pacific. I am merely pointing out that a considerable dispute exists between France and the United States of America and the closely knit monolithic western bloc no longer exists. Those are the facts.

Senator Wright:

– What is the point of relevance to Vietnam in all that?

Senator WHEELDON:

– The statement of the Minister covered more than Vietnam and I was discussing his statement. I will return later to the situation in Vietnam. I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

SULPHATE OF AMMONIA BOUNTY BILL 1966.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I. move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is proposed to extend, by a maximum period of six months the operation of the Sulphate of Ammonia Bounty Act 1962- 1964, under which bounty will cease to be payable on sulphate of ammonia sold after 3 1st March 1965. The question of assistance to producers of sulphate of ammonia is being reviewed by the Tariff Board in the context of an inquiry into the chemical industry generally. The purpose of this Bill is to continue assistance to the producers of sulphate of ammonia in the interim period, pending receipt and examination of the Board’s report. The Bill also amends the existing Act in relation to the recent decimal currency changeover. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.43 to 8 p.m.

page 345

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the fact that the international situation had changed considerably over the past ten or twelve years. We now no longer face the situation in which there is a clear demarcation between the Eastern and Western blocs. There is, in fact, a dissolution in both the Eastern and Western blocs. On the one hand, France and other countries are no longer following the same uniform line which they once followed - the line of the United States of America - and on the other hand within the Communist bloc, if it can be called a bloc, there has been considerable disagreement between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. But the important problem which faces the Australian people now is the situation within Vietnam, and a very confused situation it is. 1 do not want lo traverse the areas which have been traversed by so many speakers in the Senate during the course of this debate relating to the issues before the signing of the Geneva Accords of 1954 and subsequently, but I think it can well be said that the situation in South Vietnam now is a very fluid one. Australia, together with the United States and a number of other rather insignificant countries, at the present time have committed our armed forces to oppose the forces of the National Liberation Front, known as the Vietcong. The Vietcong itself is a body which represents a number of people apart from the Communist Party of South Vietnam. Some of the leading people within the Vietcong are people who have been affiliated with the French Radical Socialist Party, which is by no means as radical or as socialist as its title would perhaps lead one to believe. There are a number of individuals and organisations associated with the National

Liberation Front who are not Communists, but 1 do not think there would be any purpose in denying the fact that the majority of the leading positions within the Vietcong are held by members of the South Vietnamese Communist Party.

On the other hand we have the so-called Government of South Vietnam - a very confused body. I think there have been ten or eleven changes in Government since the establishment of the Republic of South Vietnam in 1954. It appears at the moment as if there could well be, in the near future, another change of government in that country. This time the change, if it does take place, will be as a result of the agitation of Buddhist and other groups who are not only opposed to the Government of South Vietnam but are also opposed to the policy of the Government in aligning itself with the United States. I think it is very significant that at the present time the agitation which is taking place inside South Vietnam, that surrounding the Buddhist and other dissident groups in South Vietnam, is not only directed against the present Government of South Vietnam as the previous agitations have been but is also directed against the United States. At one recent mass demonstration in Saigon of students at which some thousand or more members of the South Vietnam army took part slogans were carried and cries were made by the participants that they were opposed to the United States because the United States had prevented them from holding free elections within South Vietnam. These are not people who are supporting the Vietcong. These are nominally, at least, people who support the Government or Governments of South Vietnam.

It is into this situation that the Australian Government has committed some 4,500 young Australians of whom a very large number are to be conscripted. They are voteless 20 year old Australians. We are told that Australia should do this for two reasons. First, we should do this in order to halt the downward thrust of communism. We are told that what is happening in South Veitnam is part of a downward thrust by China. This allegation has been made despite the fact that not one jot of evidence has been produced that there is one single Chinese soldier taking part in the struggle against the United States and its allies in

South Vietnam; despite the fact that the American White Paper which was meant to be the definitive document opposing the actions of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam, admitted that over 95 per cent, of the arms used by Vietcong were obtained from sources other than from Communist countries - that they were captured arms or arms manufactured on the spot. Nonetheless, these facts are ignored and we are told that the Vietnam struggle is part of the downward thrust of China into South East Asia. Presumably we are expected to believe that this downward thrust is directed against Australia.

I submit there is no evidence of this. All the evidence shows that the movement inside South Vietnam, however much we may or may not deplore the social and political aims of the National Liberation Front, is an indigenous movement of the South Vietnamese people. No evidence has been brought forward to refute this proposition.

I think we have to bear in mind in the present fragmented state of Asia and the rest of the world that there are a number of national liberation movements taking place in a number of countries throughout the world - in Africa, in Asia and in Latin America. In some of these countries, for local reasons, the movement has fallen under the control of members of the Communist Party and in some of these countries it is not under the control of members of the Communist Party. In South Vietnam, as it happens, it is under the control of members of the Communist Party. Nonetheless, it is the South Vietnamese Communist Party that exercises the control and there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever that there is any interference from China or Russia as regards the sending of personnel to take part in the struggle in South Vietnam. The only substantial number of foreign troops taking part in the struggle in South Vietnam are those who have been sent there to assist the successive 10 or

II governments of South Vietnam by the United States and its allies, including Australia.

We are expected to believe that by sending these 4,500 Australian troops to South Vietnam we are doing two things: First of all, we are expected to believe that we are stopping this so called downward thrust of Communism, which is the phrase which seems to have Deen happily adopted by the three parties supporting the Government in this Senate. Secondly, we are supposed to bc taking part in the struggle in order to show to the Americans that we are their satisfactory allies. It is presumed that if we assist them now they will assist us at some time in the future. This matter has been canvassed on a number of occasions over the previous week or two and 1 believe there is not the slightest evidence to refute the argument that the Americans will assist us when it is in their interests to assist us and that they will not assist us when it is not in their interests.

We are not in South Vietnam as a result of any treaty obligations. Wc are not there as a result of the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty or of the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States, or any other treaty. We are there as a result of the arbitrary action of the Australian Government.

Senator Branson:

– You have no belief in any treaties with America.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not commenting on our treaties with America. I am commenting on the situation in South Vietnam at the present time. I suggest that there is no treaty obligation which calls for our presence in South Vietnam. There is a number of European and Asian countries which are parties to the S.E.A.T.O. treaty but are taking no part whatever in the conflict inside South Vietnam. I am prepared to discuss treaties at another time. But now I am talking about South Vietnam, and we have no treaty obligations whatever with any one of the .dozen South Vietnamese Governments or the Americans which call for our troops to bc in South Vietnam. But we are sending 4,500 Australian soldiers to that country. Although the number is small when one considers the totality of the conflict in South Vietnam that is still a large number of people, especially when one considers that they all face the possibility of being kilted in this terrible struggle in the swamps of South Vietnam, and when one considers the families and friends and relatives of the Australians who are’ being sent there. Nobody can deny that 4,500 Australian soldiers will make virtually no difference to the outcome of the struggle in South Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of men ure involved on both sides. repeat that 4,500 men can make no difference whatever to the outcome of the struggle. Australia’s participation in this war means that a number of Australians who could be leading useful and valuable lives in the community with their families are being subjected to all sorts of deprivations and suffering in South Vietnam. As we have already noted, a great number of them are paying the supreme penalty for the folly of this Government.

By our participation in this war we arc having the worst of all possible worlds. We are making not the slightest difference to the outcome of the war. We are making not the slightest difference to future policies that might be followed by the United States Government which will, as would any sensible government - I exclude the present Australian Government - act in the best interests of its own people. Wc are setting ourselves against the great mass of the people of South Vietnam and against the whole of South East Asia - indeed, against the whole of the underdeveloped areas of the world. Not one major country in the underdeveloped parts of the world supports the policy of America or Australia in South Vietnam. We are depriving a number of our citizens of an opportunity to lead useful lives. We are sending them to death inside Vietnam in a futile and useless conflict. This conflict is causing much suffering to a certain section of the Australian people and is bringing not one single benefit to the Australian nation. It is the purpose of the Senate to safeguard the interests of the Australian people and no others, including the Americans.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

.- [ congratulate the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) upon his clear and comprehensive statement about international affairs. Mr. Hasluck covered many points. At the outset he said -

We cannot change Australia’s geographical situation and we cannot cancel out the great forces that are bringing massive changes in the world today and particularly in the southern half of Asia. We in Australia are living on the edge of a great upheaval both in human relations and in the ideas which influence the conduct of mankind. We cannot withdraw from this region and we cannot do anything to prevent the upheaval.

That is very true. May I add that, whilst we cannot change Australia’s geographical situation, Australia’s situation in the world has changed greatly in the last two or three decades. We grew to nationhood under the protection of Great Britain in her period of greatest power. At that time the centre of world power was in western Europe. All the world powers except the United States of America and Japan were situated there. In those days it took from 30 to 35 days to go half way around the world by surface transport. All that has changed. We have grown up and -are now a nation. There has been an emergence of new nations in Africa and Asia. In two days, or three at the most, we can now travel half way around the world in a commercial airliner. But more significantly than that, within a few minutes an atomic missile could be sent from one part of the world to any other part.

In this sense Australia’s position in relation to the rest of the world has changed and we have become more vulnerable. Australia and New Zealand, two countries of predominantly European stock, are right out on a limb half way around the world from western Europe. We have many new nations to the near north. We as Australians must adapt our policy and our way of living to those of our neighbours in the near north. We must learn to live with them and to trade wilh them. To quote the words of the Minister for External Affairs -

As a small, independent and resolute people we have chosen whom and what we will support and whom and what we will resist. We rely on others and trust that they can rely on us.

The Minister continued -

A more direct danger is presented to us by the active and belligerent fact of Asian Communist imperialism. This has been held in check by the resistance of the free countries of Asia, helped by non-Asian countries, including ourselves.

For the sake of our own security, we will continue to support the United States and its allies in maintaining the restraints of power against the two other great aggregations of power . . .

It is very pleasing to note that South Korea is sending 20,000 troops to Vietnam to join the other forces there. That country has learned from bitter experience what Communist aggression means. It is grateful for what has been done in the past and wants to play its part to help Vietnam. The Minister for External Affairs said further -

We are not engaged in the rearguard struggle of a doomed colonialism. We are taking part in the establishment of conditions which allow independent nations to exist and prosper in Asia.

For our own wellbeing, it is vitally necessary for this to happen.. The onward march of Communism must be halted. I draw attention to the fact that our armed forces have already taken part in two campaigns to this end. We all remember South Korea. Our armed forces helped to stop the Communists in Malaysia. We are now engaged in exactly the same type of thing in Vietnam.

It is very difficult to follow the foreign policy of the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite say that they want to talk peace around the conference table. I point out that it is pretty difficult to talk, peace when there is nobody on the other side to talk to. Our opponents opposed the establish, ment of an American communication base in Australia. From their statements it seems that, if they were in Government, they would want to withdraw our troops from Vietnam, to break our treaty obligations, and to throw overboard all the principles which we as a nation have stood for. As a result of their action Australia would be friendless and would have no allies. In due course we would be invaded - something which has never happened previously to our homeland. We would be taken over by foes from without and would be overrun by sheer weight of numbers. This would happen, despite statements that have recently been made in this chamber to the effect that we could not be invaded because there was nobody to invade us. That is utter rot. .If this unfortunate state of affairs were ever allowed to take place, these same people would not then be saying: “ Save our sons “, but would be saying: “ Save our daughters and womenfolk “. Labour’s policy of defence in our own backyard instead of in somebody else’s-

Senator O’Byrne:

– They would save themselves, don’t worry.

Senator Cormack. - I rise to a point of order, Mr. President. Is the honorable senator in order in interjecting while not sitting in his own place?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is out of order, first, in sitting on the arm rest and also in interjecting from other than his own place.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– As I was saying, Labour’s policy of defence in our own backyard instead of in somebody else’s has always been very difficult to follow.

Senator Devitt:

– What was the situation in 1940 when the Government parties had to get out and the Labour Party assumed office?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– On 6th September 1939 the then Labour leader, Mr. Curtin, said this in relation to the Labour Party’s attitude to the war which had just started -

The Labour Party believes that resistance to force and armed aggression is inevitable if attacks on free and independent peoples arc to be averted.

In Vietnam, an attack is being made on a free and independent nation and our opponents are saying: “ Don’t do anything to save them.” That is not what their leader said at the start of the last World War. 1 would like to remind the Senate that the printed copy of the policy of the Australian Labour Party no longer includes the words: “ Labour will honour and support Australia’s treaties and defence alliances.” These words have been removed from Labour’s policy. I will leave it to honorable senators to come to their own conclusions about this matter.

The Minister quite clearly stated Australia’s policy in Asia. He went on to deal with Vietnam. He made it quite clear that we cannot see the conflict in Asia clearly if we look only at Vietnam, lt is not a local struggle. It continues to harrass the thoughts of compassionate people in all lands. The attempts which have been made to find a settlement have failed because it is much more than a local struggle. It has been pointed out that in Vietnam we are opposed to a ruthless enemy who will stop at nothing to achieve his ends. The stories of cruelty and murder that have come out of Vietnam arc something of which no civilised nation can be proud. It is quite clear that the only 94 ji in which we can negotiate any sort of a peace in Vietnam is to negotiate from strength. By that I mean that we must support our allies and show the enemy quite clearly that it is engaged in a hopeless struggle. It has also become obvious in Vietnam that once peace has been achieved and hostilities cease, a very big job lies ahead of Australia and her allies in winning the peace. It will be necessary to re-establish civilian administration and local government authorities, train enough school teachers to replace those Who have been ruthlessly murdered and find enough leaders to lead the local people so that they can learn to have a freely elected government of their own in a proper democracy.

Let me refer to another part of the Minister’s statement where he mentioned the attempts that have been made to negotiate a peace. He said -

Direct contact with the Hanoi regime was made in some capitals where the United States and North Vietnam were both represented. All these approaches were summarily rejected. Peking, Hanoi and the Vietcong prefer war. Let us face that fact. They prefer war.. They have chosen war. They said so in plain and angry words. They denounced American efforts for peace. It was under these circumstances that restrained bombing of the North was resumed.

Those who say that we have not made any effort to obtain a negotiated peace are given the lie direct in this statement. As I said before, the only way in which to negotiate is to negotiate from strength. One thing is certain: International Communism is on the march. Its aim is world domination. The only thing uncertain is the timing of its next move. We are lucky to have such a powerful ally as the United States of America. We must take a stand against Communism. We must say to the Communists: “This far, but no further.” This is what we are doing in South Vietnam. I would like to refer to some of the other points which were made by the Minister in his statement. He referred to the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. He mentioned the .part that Australia plays in this activity. He said -

  1. . we are seeking to be good neighbours, in a practical sense, by pooling our experience and expertise in matters of economic development for others to draw on it as they deem appropriate. In return, we profit by the access E.C.A.F.E. affords us to the knowledge of other members of the region.

The Minister went on to deal with the Asian Development Bank. Australia is making a substantial contribution to the working capital of this bank. If plans develop, as it is hoped they will develop, the Bank will contribute substantially towards development in the area of the world in which we live. I understand from Press reports, that the capital for the Bank has been fully subscribed and that the Bank is almost ready to go into business.

The Minister went on to refer to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which has its permanent headquarters and secretariat in Geneva.

This conference is designed to assist in developing an industrial base while a country is still very heavily dependent on the export of primary industries. The Minister then referred to the Development Assistance Committee, which includes a number of European countries, the United States, Canada and Japan. He staled -

We have fell that we should, if possible, put ourselves in a position to benefit from regular discussion wilh the other major donors and to contribute our own not inconsiderable experience and our views to the common pool.

The Minister then dealt with the question of food relief for India, the position in Malaysia and Singapore, the position in Indonesia and the position in India, Pakistan, Africa and Rhodesia.

He summed up with a generalised statement on the range of Australian diplomatic activities. I should just like to mention briefly the position in Indonesia, which is our nearest foreign neighbour, lt is the only foreign neighbour with which we have a land boundary but, unfortunately, that land boundary between our Territory df Papua and New Guinea and West Irian is not even marked on the ground. I hope that our Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) will continue to press our neighbours in Indonesia to come along in a joint effort to get this boundary actually marked on a proper survey so that we will know where the boundary is. If the boundary is marked it will be less likely to cause incidents in the future. The part of the Minister’s statement which deals with Africa and the developments in some of the newly independent countries makes interesting reading. He mentioned that more than 30 countries have become independent in the last decade and that this has changed the whole outlook of the African continent. It must have some significance for world diplomacy and world trade in the years to come.

Finally, the Minister dealt with Australia’s diplomatic activities. This is something of which we, as Australians, can be proud. Australia is now represented in 40 countries. We have access to places of influence because we, or those who represent us, have earned the confidence of others. We have entered very largely into the diplomatic traffic of the world, both in the free capitals with which we are most closely linked - I refer to London,

Washington and the international capital of the United Nations - and in other capitals in which we are represented, lt is very interesting to us to see the development of the diplomatic corps in our own national capital of Canberra. Canberra is being visited more and more by statesmen from other lands. We have profited from the visits that we have received in the past year from, amongst others, the Vice-President of the United States, the Ministers for Defence for the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and other persons in high office from the United Kingdom, the United States and other places. We well remember the visit of the President of the Malagasian Republic who was the first head of an African State to visit Australia. The fact of Australia having diplomatic representation in many countries and capitals of the world must help our trade, it must help people travelling overseas and it must benefit this country.

Our overseas trade is so bound up with international affairs that our very livelihood and wellbeing as a nation depend on our relations with other countries. This makes the quality of our representation in other lands of vital importance to us. We are very lucky to have officers of such high calibre in our overseas service. Our relationship with western European countries is particularly important to us especially now when our migration programme is running at such a high rate. It is essential that we keep the best possible staff in our offices overseas to make sure that our migration programme continues at a satisfactory level.

I shall conclude by quoting the last paragraph of the Minister’s statement. He said -

A nation of our size is not heard by speaking loudly, it is not heard by speaking all the time. We are listened to and we have influence if others believe that we talk sense, that wc talk in good faith and that we back up our words with deeds. We are trying to establish those conditions and I am encouraged to believe that we are succeeding.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- The statement which the Senate is debating tonight is an important one. It was made by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck), on 10th March and is a considered statement of the Government’s position on many of the matters that affect our relations with other countries and especially the peoples of Asia. In my view, the statement shows some alarming deficiencies in the

Government’s approach to the very serious questions with which it has to deal. There is a great gap between words and deeds. There is a great gap between the Minister’s description of what he thinks the Government is aiming at and what the Government is actually doing. 1 commence by directing attention to some very fine sounding words which appear in the opening paragraph of the Minister’s statement. If they were accepted at face value they would indicate a mature assessment of the position. He said -

We in Australia are living on the edge of a great upheaval both in human relations and in the ideas which influence the conduct of mankind. We cannot withdraw from this region and we cannot do anything to prevent the upheaval.

But what we are in fact busily engaged in doing today - I am referring now to the Government - is laying the foundations of trouble in the years ahead. We are showing how not to live with Asia. The whole approach of the Government to the question of foreign relations is essentially superficial. The Government has oversimplified the problems that face Australia today. The Minister talks in moralistic phrases and his sentences are impeccable. It is only when we come to analyse the Government’s actual approach behind this magnificent facade of words that we realise how far Australia has declined in standing in the outside world since the days when a Labour Government held office, especially in the years during and immediately after the Second World War.

I think back to the days when a Labour Government, which had successfully steered Australia through a dreadful world war, played an extremely prominent part in the establishment of the world organisation, the United Nations. I notice that several honorable senators on the Government side are interjecting. I wish they would remain quiet. 1 remember the days when Dr. Evatt, as Australia’s Minister for External Affairs, was the spokesman for all the middle sized and smaller powers in the world at the end of the Second World War. At that time Australia spoke on behalf of the small nations and demanded to be heard on the big issues of the day, irrespective of the views of the warring giants– the major powers. In that situation the prettiest compliment that could have been paid to Australia by the countries of the United Nations was to elect her

Minister for External Affairs the President of the General Assembly in its third year of existence. Not only was that a tribute to the distinguished and energetic efforts of the Australian Labour Government but also it revealed Australia as occupying a special position in the affairs of the world - a position which demanded and commanded respect.

Since that time, our standing in world affairs has declined. I make that as a serious statement because today Australia is not regarded as having any special voice of its own. Australia is regarded as having fallen meekly into the division of great power blocs, accepting all the simplicities but none of the complexities of the cold war and its aftermath, and engaging in polemics which hide or obscurethe realities beneath the surface. That is why Senator Lawrie spoke in general terms about his appreciation of the Government’s attitude on these matters. He did not look behind the rhetoric. For example, he did not even disclose to honorable senators and to the public who are listening to the debate that he spoke on behalf of the Australian Country Party, a Party which has profited much from trade with Communist China. It is not my purpose tonight-

Senator Webster:

– How does the honorable senator make that out?

Senator COHEN:

– I say that Communist China is Australia’s fourth largest customer in certain primary products.

Senator Webster:

– How does the Country Party benefit by that?

Senator COHEN:

– Its supporters have benefited by it, and I say good luck to them;

Senator Webster:

– Have no supporters of the Labour Party benefited also?

Senator COHEN:

– I suppose they have.

Senator Webster:

-Then why pick out the Country Party?

Senator COHEN:

– What I am pointing to is the completely hypocritical attitude of the Government and its supporters on this issue. I am not against trade with China or with any other nation. What I am against is this business of having two bob each way, of speaking with moral indignation about the monstrous Chinese Communist menace to Australia and using that as justification for sending voteless 20 year olds to die in

Vietnam without even disclosing the fact that the people who support that policy support also the development and expansion of trade with China.

Senator Webster:

– Does the honorable senator agree with the Government’s proposal to send rice to Indonesia?

Senator COHEN:

– I will not answer any more interjections. The honorable senator can make his own speech later. The people who support the Government’s policy in relation to Vietnam do not believe in it themselves. They do not believe in the abstract nouns that they use. They are interested in trade. Good luck to them. In the long run it will be to Australia’s benefit, but let us not have a double standard all the time.

The Minister for External Affairs, in his statement, made a number of general excursions in the discussion of the problems. He seemed to me to be making some unjustified claims’ for his Government. For example, he said -

We have carried out for many years past a policy that respects the neutrality of those who choose to be neutral and respects the sovereignty and independence of all Asian powers. 1 believe that this side of our policy has shown some considerable success.

One has only to test that assertion by the views which have been expressed, by responsible people in countries like Cambodia and Pakistan. Back in 1962 Prince Sihanouk, the Cambodian Head of State, had this to say to Sir Garfield Barwick who was then paying a visit to Cambodia in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs -

We arc deeply grateful to Australia for this valuable assistance. Nevertheless, it seems to me that our Australian friends could be fairer in their assessment of our policy of neutrality, and provide us at the same time with some moral support.

I commend to the Senate the following passage in the Prince’s speech, because I believe that it has some important messages for Australia and particularly for a government which talks a great deal about these issues but leads us further and further into error -

Today, Australia has an important role to play in Southeast Asia. Her geographical position, and her peculiar standing as a Western Power qualify her better than any other country to act as a bridge between Asia and the West. The disturbed conditions now prevalent in this part of the World are to bc ascribed largely to mistakes made by our friends In the West, who have failed to grasp the true nature of popular aspiration in Southeast Asia, despite their efforts to do so, and ours to enlighten them, lt would be heart-breaking -indeed if the Great Powers of the Free World were to persist in considering neutrality downright treason, or proof of connivance with their adversaries’. Moreover, a dangerous situation would arise if, acting on the erroneous assumption that this was the case, they were to resort to supporting, by force of arms, unpopular and aggressive dictatorships which, although claiming to be allies merely contribute to widening the gulf between Asia and the West. Now Australia, by helping to bridge this gulf, can assist in preventing these two parts of the World from isolating themselves from each other in unrealistic fashion: it is in her interest, and in ours, that she do sci -

I took the liberty of quoting at length from that speech by the Cambodian Head of State, because that passage indicates the correct direction in which Australia should move in order to be capable of enjoying good relations with countries in our part of the world, irrespective of their political orientation.

The same point was made, perhaps even more directly, by President Ayub of Pakistan in his broadcast to the nation on 1st March of this year. The President was talking of the problem of trying to maintain good relations with people on both sides of the international conflict. He posed the problem in these words -

Our relations with other countries are also growing stronger.

These relations are not based on any political expediency or temporary gains, but on fundamental principles of peace and friendly co-operation. That is the reason why we and our friends endeavour to understand each other’s difficulties and problems with sympathy.

Guiding principles of our foreign policy is that differences among other countries should not interfere with our relations wilh them. Consequently, alongside our tics of sincere friendship with China, we are developing friendly relations with United States on one hand, and U.S.S.R. on the other.

As though to underscore that point, he went on to deal with China. I emphasise that these words come from the President of Pakistan, which is one of the South East Asia Treaty Oganisation powers allied to the Australian Government. President Ayub said - lt has been our belief from the very beginning that there is no danger to the Sub-continent from China provided no uncalled for provocation is aimed against that country. As for the problems of South East Asia, we have always held the view that they can be solved, not by force, but through peaceful means.

Senator Prowse:

– Did Pakistan act on that?

Senator COHEN:

– I do not believe that Australia has any special quarrel with Pakistan, except perhaps for the fact that it has chosen not to send troops to Vietnam because it does not believe that the commitments undertaken in the conflict in Vietnam arise from any obligations under the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty any more than any other S.E.A.T.O. members, apart from Australia and New Zealand, accept that position. I put that general proposition to the Senate right at the outset because it seems to me to be a much sounder approach to the whole problem of our relations with Asia. The approach of the Government is a -goodies and badies approach; their side and our side; if you are not with us you are against us. That is a simple formula for school children to follow but it is not a policy guide line for a country that aspires to be well regarded by the other countries of the world. I believe that this simple mindedness in Australia’s policy is doing us a great deal of harm with our Asian neighbours.

I come next to some of the other propositions which are dealt with in the Minister’s statement and to which the shortage of time leads me to hurry. The Minister said quite frankly -

We are prepared to accept the present authorities in North Vietnam as they are, to work with them and to have them share in programmes for economic development in South East Asia.

That is a clear statement of what Australia is prepared to accept in relation to North Vietnam. In other words, Australia is prepared to acknowledge the Ho Chi Minh regime and all that goes with it. But we have no indication whatever of what kind of government the Australian Government, as a government with forces in Vietnam and soon to have conscript forces there, is prepared to accept in South Vietnam. Until the Government makes much more than a general statement of aims, it will never get down to the task of finding a peaceful solution of the problems there. The Minister’s statement says -

Our aims are to defend South Vietnam, to preserve its security and to allow it freely to determine the economic and political system it wants.

I suppose that everybody would support that general purpose. But the difficulty comes when we try to give it some sort of realistic content. Here we receive no assistance whatever from the Government because it has not a clue as to what sort of political solution is to emerge in South Vietnam. The Government is blundering along, muddling through, taking its place alongside our great ally the United States, in this military venture in Vietnam, but it has not the foggiest- idea where we are heading. When the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, was asked for his opinion on the future in South Vietnam just a few months before his retirement, he said: “ Let us win the war first. Then we will talk about the future. Let us just keep banging away.”

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– He called it a war.

Senator COHEN:

– I believe that the Government knows pretty well that we are completely unsatisfied with its case about Australia being at war or not being at war. I have no doubt that more will be said in this debate about taking part in an undeclared war. At the moment I am dealing with the aims that the Government has. I say without fear of contradiction that it does not know where it is going.

Senator Gorton:

– Well, the honorable senator is contradicted.

Senator COHEN:

– I beg the Minister’s pardon?

Senator Gorton:

– I was just contradicting the honorable senator.

Senator COHEN:

– The Minister will have to do better than that. He will have to produce a few facts and- arguments. As the Acting Minister for External Affairs, he should tell the Senate how the Government sees this matter working out in fact. There are many anxious people-

Senator O’Byrne:

– “ Hasluck will shoot “, is the Government’s motto.

Senator COHEN:

– 1 do not know whether the Government will shoot, but I do know that people are extremely worried. This is a gnawing problem; it is not an easy one. It cannot be dismissed either by describing it in generalities or by ridiculing or smearing the opposition to the Government’s policy. We have reached a stage where the Government is seriously concerned about the attacks that have been made on it and on its policy. It is facing, perhaps for the first time in many years, a ground swell of revolt against an important aspect of its policy.

Senator Gorton:

– You hope.

Senator COHEN:

– No; 1 know, and we will all know something, after Kooyong on Saturday, about what the Australian people think about the Government’s present policy. The Minister is the one who is hoping.

Senator Branson:

– What would the Labour Party do as an alternative other than withdraw Australian troops from Vietnam?

Senator COHEN:

– We would try to show the world that Australia has a voice of its own in these matters. Honorable senators opposite who are interjecting will have their chance to speak. Even if they do not want to listen to what I have to say they will not divert me. They cannot stifle opposition here as they do in other places, lt is time the Government was shown that the opposition to its commitment of Australian troops to Vietnam, and particularly the conscription element of that commitment, is widespread. The Government cannot deal with this opposition by attempting, as some Ministers do when answering questions, to dismiss it as just a demonstration by a few youths against something they do not approve. lt is much more than that. It is the authentic voice of Australian nationalism, rising from a people who have too long suffered under a Government which has treated them with contempt. The tide is turning. Honorable senators opposite arc conscious of it and they are pretty glum at the moment because they know what is happening.

In the days of the late Or. Evatt, in the days of the last Labour Government, in a similar situation we would have heard something of Australia in the affairs of the world. We would not have had Australian troops committed to this proposition in Asia. We would not have been involved in what the Americans all along have hoped and prayed they would never be involved in - a major land war in Asia. Every responsible American commentator and every responsible general from MacArthur and Bradley onwards, has warned America against the danger of a land war in Asia.

That has been particularly well expressed by the noted commentator, Waller Lippmann, who speaks for a wide section of the American community and whose articles are featured in the Australian Press alongside articles by people who hold other points of view. The present situation would never have arisen in Chifley’s or Evatt’s or Curtin’s time. We would never have meekly followed in the footsteps of a friendly power, no matter how powerful or how friendly. We would have wanted to ensure that we had something to contribute, something more than men and material, something which represented a positive approach to the problems of war and peace.

I invite the Minister, when replying to the debate, to point to a single occasion since this conflict in Vietnam broke out on which the Australian Government has said “ We think it would be a good idea to try so and so “, “ We think you ought 10 try to get a peace mission working.” or “ We think you ought to make approaches in this or that direction, notwithstanding the disappointments and rebuffs from the other side “. If the Minister had an answer to what I am saying he would have let me have it, but he has not got it. This is where Labour would stand on these issues.

Senator Gair:

– To which part of the Labour Party are you referring? How long have you been in the A.L.P.?

Senator COHEN:

– I do not reply to personal abuse. The representatives of the splinter Party, as well as those of the Government Parties, will get their reply on Saturday.

Let me now go on to the next point I want to make. In some respects the Minister’s speech betrayed a mild awareness of some of the big things that are happening today. I believe that, slowly but surely the international atmosphere is changing today and we are getting to the stage where certain subjects are no longer taboo, lt is not so long ago since one could not even mention the possibility of discussions or negotiations with the Vietcong, but now that suggestion comes from some very responsible sources in the United States of America. Today, realistically, every honorable senator on the Government side - they are not game to say so, because it is not yet Government policy - secretly believes there will be some recognition of the

National Liberation Front as a major negotiating party. In the U.S.A., that view is coming from supporters of the Government itself. It is coming from the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Fullbright. It is coming from Senator Mike Mansfield, Democratic Leader in the Senate, from Senator Robert Kennedy and from U Thant, Secretary General of the United Nations. The ridiculous interjections from the other side of this chamber, which betray a lamentable lack of imagination and initiative on the part of Government senators, carry their own condemnation. The point is that there is being undertaken in the United States today what the late John Foster Dulles called - in relation to an entirely different situation - an agonising reappraisal of policy. That reappraisal has been announced in the last day or so by Mr. Goldberg, the United States representative at the United Nations. As reported in today’s or yesterday’s Press he said -

The United States policy towards China is being intensively reviewed within the Government. lt is all very well for Government supporters to raise derisive howls when one mentions this subject, but the fact is that whatever initiative has come, whatever search for a breakthrough has been made, has come not from the Government and its supporters but from the ranks of the Opposition and from (he mature minded and responsible citizens who realize that we are being sold down the river; that we are being dragged into a war which we cannot win and in which Australia can take no pride.

These are the big issues with which, in his own way, the Minister is fumbling for an opportunity to come to terms, but he is not ready to put this view forward as an element of Government policy. He is waiting till a change takes place in the United States and elsewhere so that Australia can come in on the band waggon. This is what 1 have interpreted the Minister’s stand to be, and I do not think I am far wrong. I think what he has done here is to make generalisations and to run away from the realistic, factual situations that lie beneath the surface. We, on this side of the Chamber believe this policy has led us nowhere.

We have to be with those who are really saying something about the problem. Honorable senators opposite are saying nothing in this debate. They are saying nothing to this country and to the world because Australia under this Government has nothing to offer. The people of Australia are waking up very rapidly to this situation. They are opposed in a way that they have not been ment’s policy of conscripting voteless youths for overseas service. I am sure that they will come to realise in the weeks ahead that what the Labour Party is saying in this debate is virtually unanswerable. We expect from the Australian Government attachment to Australia’s best interests and an assertion of an Australian place in world affairs which we have not had since the days of the last Federal Labour Government.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– In the speech delivered by the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton), who represents in this chamber the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck), he emphasised two vital points. One was that we cannot change our geographical position and the other was that we must understand the ideas and motives which influence the conduct of our neighbours. I made up my mind tonight that I would not be provoked by anything said by the Opposition, but Senator Cohen has made what seems to me to be a most ridiculous statement. The propaganda has gone on and on since 1943 about what the Australian Labour Party did in World War II. The Labour Party split the Australian Army from stem to stern. It did not build even one munitions factory or create one thing to add to the war effort, nor did. it raise one extra man.

Senator Cohen referred to Dr. Evatt and what happened at San Francisco in July 1945. Has Senator Cohen ever read these words, spoken by a very great man -

As Australia’s representative Evatt showed up at his controversial best and worst. Evatt is tha Leader of the Opposition among the small powers and the most questionable figure at the Conference. He has courted Latin America and even risked embroiling us with Russia - though he would have reproached us if this had occurred.

On 5th July 1945 another great Australian said of Evatt -

I know all his weaknesses and have no admiration for the way he works.

He pointed out all the weaknesses in Dr. Evatt’s work at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. But we must give credit to Dr. Evatt, because he was responsible for the draft of the charter. I put that to Senator Cohen for his serious consideration.

I return to the issue before the Senate - our external affairs policy. It must be founded on two fundamental facts, and it is so founded. We hope that our neighbours and the people of Asia regard us as reliable people, trying not only to understand their problems but also to respect their views and political aspirations. That is what this Government is trying to do. In spite of what Senator Cohen has said, for two years this Government has tried to bring about peace in Vietnam, by every means at its disposal. Senator Cohen cannot deny the truth of that. He asked what we should do. We have tried to bring about .peace. We want to understand the problems of the Asians. It is among our sincere aims which we wish to attain. We hope that the economic aid we willingly give is proof of this desire.

Honorable senators opposite have referred to our troops being sent to Vietnam. An important factor is that we have increased our economic aid to a great extent but not one word about that assistance has been heard from the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite sit quietly, like dumb, driven cattle. I believe that the work done by a gallant band of our fellow Australians in many locations in Vietnam is warmly appreciated in our neighbouring countries. 1 refer to the work done by Australian doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, agriculturists, diplomats and many others. Their efforts in reconstruction and rehabilitation work are bringing new hope to the Asian people and giving them confidence in their ability to improve their living and economic standards to equal those of the Western world. That is what we want, and that is what we arc endeavouring to achieve, but not one word about it has been heard from the Opposition.

We believe that the Asian nations, large and small, must have independence and an opportunity to achieve the results they desire. We have promised aid to South Vietnam in answer to their request for help. We know that the free Western world and the United States of America will strive to give aid and will help to bring independence and opportunity to Asia. I believe that the new imperialism of Communist China with its accompanying aggression will destroy these hopes and prevent the independent Asian nations from prospering and enjoying the right to rule themselves by their own free choice.

We have heard a great deal about the so-called liberation fronts. We have heard of the National Liberation Front in Vietnam, the Thailand Liberation Front and in Australia the Communist front. They all receive their instructions and help from Peking. Why? To ensure that all of us will not be free to exercise our right to have a democracy, and for no other reason. Will any honorable senator opposite tell me in what country, Communist controlled or under Communist rule, free elections are held as we know them? The National Liberation Front in South Vietnam is trying to enforce its views by violent military aggression.

Senator Murphy:

– When was the last election held in South Vietnam?

Senator MATTNER:

– Does Senator Murphy deny that the North Vietnamese are endeavouring to force their views clown the throats, as it were, of the South Vietnamese? Will the honorable senator tell me when North Vietnam ever had a free election? Will he tell me whether the North Vietnamese are allowed to choose their own government? The answer is: “ No.” The honorable senator cannot tell mc, unless he has blisters on his tongue.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Will the honorable senator tell us when South Vietnam last had an election?

Senator MATTNER:

– I am coming to the honorable senator’s point. Having listened to Senator Turnbull and Senator Wheeldon during this debate on Government policy, I am forced to make more than passing reference to what Australia is doing in South Vietnam. Australia’s participation in and assistance to South Vietnam in resisting Communist aggression from North Vietnam is designed to ensure the future security of our country. Do honorable senators opposite deny it? These are the most important issues facing us today. What freedom or right of self government have the North Vietnamese? The answer is: “ None at all “.

In an earlier debate Senator Turnbull and Senator Wheeldon spoke on the position in Vietnam. Both are learned and educated.

They have had the advantage of a liberal education. They are experienced in politics and widely travelled and must be regarded as intellectuals. Their speeches were notable for their deliberation. Every argument the honorable senators advanced had been well considered and they were delivered in a considered and studied manner. Both expressed, as they said, the views of the intellectuals in Australia. Senator Turnbull referred to our immigration laws and also gave his reasons why Communism was accepted. He said that university people were intelligent enough to accept the Communist philosophy. He said he himself had no fear of Communism coming to Australia because it bred among those who have not. Surely Senator Turnbull does not want us to believe that university people are in the have-not class? Yet he admitted that university people accept the Communist philosophy.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– That is not what I said. The honorable senator must have been asleep again.

Senator MATTNER:

– Senator Turnbull can read what he said in “ Hansard “. He said that in China, Mao Tse Tung gave the peasants land. That is true. Nobody denies it; but he promptly re-acquired it and vested it in the communes where nobody has a personal title to land. Senator Turnbull conveniently forgot to mention that great land reforms have taken place in South Vietnam since 1954. He forgot to say that Air Vice Marshal Ky has promised further land reforms based on the pattern of land ownership in Taiwan, the most progressive land reform and the most valued title in the whole of Asia.. Senator Turnbull spoke in glowing terms of his spiritual home - China. That is fair enough. I do not mind that; but he dismissed Taiwan with unflattering remarks impugning the people’s loyalty to their country. Of course, it is well known that when the Communists take over the agricultural production in their own land, great food shortages occur. Of course we sell wheat to. China.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Why does the Government sell wheat to a country with which we are at war?

Senator MATTNER:

– To prevent their people from starving. They pay for it. ls that wrong? They pay for it because they are not mendicants. What is wrong with showing a little kindness to any nation. I thought Senator Turnbull wanted goodwill to exist between people. Senator Turnbull said that he did not care if the whole South East Asian continent came under the rule of aggressive Communism. Australia’s safety would not be endangered, he said, even if aggressive Communism came to the borders of Papua and New Guinea.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I did not say Papua and New Guinea.

Senator MATTNER:

– The honorable senator said he would not mind if they took over. The whole of South East Asia could go. And do not forget West Irian is in South East Asia. Many men and women are sincere in their motives but,, having little to do with Communism, they are deluded by its propaganda. Soft hearts often lead to soft brains.

Senator Wheeldon said in an earlier debate that if we accept the Domino theory as a valid theory, then the logical outcome is that action - he meant military action - must be taken against all countries under Communist rule. He spoke of the apocalyptic attitude. He detailed the revelation of the future and attempted to reveal the unknown. Leaving the realm of fantasy, he came back to earth; yet he was still unsure of his facts because he said that the Government had based its foreign policy on the Domino theory. Of course, this assumption is false and has no basis of fact. Consequently, Senator Wheeldon’s whole case was specious and his criticisms, based on wrong premises, fall to the ground. Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, is held in high esteem by the Australian Labour Party and also by Senator Wheeldon. Lee Kuan Yew said this -

Wc know that if Communists envelop South Vietnam, then the same tactics will be used lo submerge her neighbours … As democratic socialists, we must insist that the South Vietnamese must not be overwhelmed through armed might and terror.

That is what we are trying to prevent. How stands the Opposition On the future security and defence of Australia? That is a fair question to ask. It is not State aid to education that is causing the split in the Australian Labour Party. The real split is over the question whether Australia’s security is endangered. Many Australian Labour Party members believe it to be endangered. They are willing and anxious to defend the land of their birth but there are sections within Australia that would welcome a Communist takeover in South Vietnam. The former echo the voice of Lee Kuan Yew; the latter see only good in Communism.

Waves of divergent opinions are rocking the Australian Labour Party ship. It takes only a little imagination to visualise the present situation as something akin to the position of Sir Richard Grenville as he stood on the deck of the “ Revenge “. I say this with full apologies to Sir Richard. The roles are changed somewhat but we see a tall and vocal man - Mr. Whitlarn - standing before the 12 witless men - that is his description and not mine - and declaiming -

Sink me the ship, Master Kennelly or Frasers - 4

Split her in twain.

Fall into the hands of Santamaria

But not into the hands of Chamberlain’.

The right wing of Labour says that Australia cannot be neutral in the face of aggression by countries seeking to deny security and self government to others. A motion to that effect was moved and defeated at the Federal Australian Labour Party Conference in Sydney in August 1965. Six delegates from New South Wales, six from Tasmania and one from Western Australia supported it. In other words, 37 per cent, of the delegates supported it and the remainder voted against it. The motion was lost. Of the 23 delegates who voted against it, one was Mr. Calwell. There we saw the great united Australian Labour Party in action. In August last there was a quite significant split in the Labour Party on this question, and that serves to reinforce the argument that I put earlier. I have given the facts.

Let us contrast with the Labour Party record the measures which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) has taken. He has said that Australia must be defended and that every Australian youth who underwent national service training could be involved in some duty overseas. That was explained prior to the national service training scheme being introduced. That fact was known to the Australian public before the last Senate’ election. The Labour Party says that the matter should be tested by a referendum. How many honorable senators had any physical contact with the referenda of World War I? The then Prime Minister, Mr. Hughes, lost the confidence of the Australian people, not because the referenda were defeated but because he knew that the voluntary system of enlistment had failed and that conscription for service was absolutely necessary if the volunteers were to have a reasonable chance of survival. Surely to goodness there is not one honorable senator opposite who would quarrel with such a proposition if it meant that the lives of volunteers were to be protected. Mr. Hughes should have achieved his purpose by means of an act of Parliament.

The Australian people respect and admire our present Prime Minister for having the courage of his convictions. He has nailed his colours to the mast. How often have we heard the question asked: “ Why do you not do something? You possess more reliable information than we do. Be bold and courageous and put your political beliefs into legislative action.” I believe that Australians welcome a leader of courage, and I think they are right to do so. The great mass of young men are not draft dodgers. They are willing to defend their own land - Australia. Will the opponents of national service please explain a paradox to me? They say that our cause in South Vietnam is just and right if volunteers are sent to protect us. But that just and right cause changes completely if national servicemen are to be sent to defend us. It then becomes a dirty business. They say that no national serviceman should be sent to assist American national servicemen to make Australia safe. But is not the reason that our national servicemen are going to Vietnam, to make Australia safe?

Moreover, it is said that the family and friends of the national serviceman suffer untold agony of mind. Do honorable senators opposite wish to imply that volunteers are orphans, without parents, without friends and without love and affection, that they are homeless and without a stake in the country and for that reason may be sacrificed without any qualms of conscience and even without any expression of gratitude for defending us? I should like honorable senators opposite to explain that paradox to me. I suggest they should pause for a moment and compare the emotions and feelings of the national serviceman with the fate of his mother, his sister or his fiance if a hostile force - in this case aggressive Communism - were to take over in Australia. That is not impossible.

We on this side of the House will use every endeavour to get the North Vietnamese to the conference table. As honorable senators know, the British Prime Minister and other Prime Ministers tried to contact Hanoi and to get North Vietnam and South Vietnam to the peace table. Honorable senators also know how those peace offers were rejected. We know, too, that America has proclaimed to the world: “ We want peace. We want both North Vietnam and South Vietnam to choose their way of life in a peaceful atmosphere free from strife and intimidation “. We hale to sec our lads go overseas. They are of us. They have grown up and have received their nurture in our midst. They have hopes and aspirations. They have been prepared to face life in a certain way, but now for a while they have to throw away all their hopes and aspirations and take up a life that is abhorrent to them so that we may enjoy our democratic way of life. Believing this - and I certainly believe it - I throw back in the teeth of our critics the dastardly lie that we have no thought for the young men of Australia. 1 conclude by reverting to the point which I made at the beginning of my speech. We are trying to understand our neighbours. We arc willing to help them and be their friends. We wish them to have the opportunity to gain a good government. As a matter of fact, I think that honorable senators opposite wish that to happen, too. That is why our men are serving in Vietnam. They are trying to give the people of Vietnam the chance to do the things I have mentioned. Yet honorable senators opposite want to deny them that opportunity. We appreciate the efforts of the South Vietnamese to bring about land reform and to raise their living standards. Their future safety and welfare are the best safeguards for Australia, so that we may remain free as a democratic people and not be forced to accept aggressive Communism from the barrel of a gun. I commend to the notice and thoughts of every Australian the paper that we are discussing.

I hope that Australians generally will read and understand the great sentiments that have been expressed by the Minister for External Affairs.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– This debate is taking place in somewhat unusual circumstances. The Senate is considering a paper dealing with international affairs, yet the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) has left the country. Ordinarily, that might give rise to some criticism, but I do not propose to initiate or support any criticism on that ground because 1 have always believed that the Minister charged with the conduct of our external relations should be on visiting terms with our neighbours. 1 hope that the Minister will take every opportunity to meet our neighbours and to discuss our problems with them. 1 believe that on the tour which the Minister is now making he is acting and working for Australia.

In this debate there has been a good deal of concentration on the questions of conscription and Vietnam, both of which were discussed fairly fully in an earlier debate a week ago, so I propose to discuss some of the general principles on which I believe the foreign policy of Australia should be based in these dangerous and difficult times. We have all heard of a book in which Australia was described as the lucky country. Until about 1940 Australia was a lucky country’. We lived a quiet backwater of the world. We were involved in a war from 1914 to 1918, but we felt safe because of our isolation and because we believed that we were under the shelter of the British Navy. But that changed with World War II. Prior to World War 1.1, between us and the teeming millions of Asia we had French forces in IndoChina, Dutch forces in the East Indies, British forces in Burma, Malaya and India, and American forces in the Philippines. When World War II ended all were gone. Our position became more serious in 1949 when 600 million Chinese came under Communist rule. I repeat what I have said before: Once China came under Communist rule nothing could ever be the same again for the people of Australia.

The Australian Labour Party, through its leader, Mr. Calwell, has contended that this changed position involves no dangers for

Australia. Members of lue Labour Party have suggested that Australia can adopt a neutralist attitude. I recall Prime Minister Nehru of India contending that Communist China involved no danger for his country and that India could safely adopt a neutralist attitude. Before his death he realised his mistake. We have been told by the leader of the Australian Labour Party that we have no business sending troops to fight in other countries. Apparently he has forgotten that the government of which he was a member was the first to send Australian troops abroad in peacetime to fight in Malaya, and that his Party approved the sending of Australian troops to Korea. When the Australian Labour Party had the responsibility of government there was no question of its members saying that we should do our fighting in our own back yard. On the contrary, when they were in government and had .the responsibility they believed that Australia had obligations abroad. Then they did not adopt Mr. Calwell’s attitude and say that we should stay in our own back yard; they adopted the attitude of John Curtin who said that the security of Australia did not depend upon defence within our own shores but that our defence must be maintained in the areas north of Australia.

What are the foreign affairs facts of life, if I may put it that way? We are a small European community of 11 million people faced with communities of many more millions of Asians. We face problems in our dealings with them from the viewpoint of colour and also - this will become very serious - from the viewpoint of food. We are a food producing country. It is contended that we are not producing food to the limit of our capacity. In the world that will be experienced by our children in 30 or 40 years time food will be all-important. Will our country, with a population of 20 million, tell the people of Asia, many of whom will be starving, that Australia will remain closed to their entry? Another factor must be taken into consideration. The socalled white races are already in the minority in the world. Today the so-called white races are practising birth control more than is any other race. The developed countries will use the pill but the underdeveloped countries will not. Within 20 or 30 years the so called white races must inevitably be in the minority to a considerably greater degree. In these circumstances the children of other honorable senators and myself will face a situation of intense and serious danger.

As a country we have no aggressive or imperialistic designs. Therefore we are in a position to base our foreign policy upon the search for security and peace. But whilst everybody wants peace, we must face the facts. Unfortunately, it is as true to say today as it was for Bismarck to say 100 years ago that the great questions of the day are decided not by conferences and discussions but by blood and iron. Therefore, in determining our foreign policy we must look to two things. First, we must base our policy on an effort to retain within our area the forces of Britain and the United States. That is vital to our future. Secondly, we must endeavour by every means at our disposal to establish good relations with our Asian neighbours.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Does that include trade with China?

Senator McMANUS:

– 1 shall deal with that matter later. We have already tackled to some degree the establishment of good relations with our Asian neighbours. Australia is giving aid to Asian countries. However, I believe that the extent of that aid is somewhat exaggerated when considered in the light of the fact that the overwhelming bulk of what we call aid is being given to New Guinea. Although we are endeavouring to assist Asia with foodstuffs, our effort in that respect is not all that it should be and there are some aspects of it with which I disagree. We are playing a very considerable part in the education and training of the experts and skilled people whom the Asian countries need. I hope that our country will try to expand that aid as much as possible.

A country which is as small as ours cannot grapple with the whole problem. We must face up to the fact that, while we are endeavouring to maintain friendship with Asia, we will have to meet powerful forces which do not want friendship but which have strong aggressive and imperialistic designs towards this part of the world. I think that was recognised by Mr. Chifley when he first sent Australian troops to Malaya. Who can doubt that in the back of his mind was the thought that there was a possible threat to the security of this country? Who can doubt that he believed, as did Curtin, that we just could not stay an our own back yard but must face- the situation that Australia might have to be defended in areas north of this country? When we sent troops to Korea - whether or not it was under the auspices of the United Nations - we did so as part of a programme to hold back what were believed to be the aggressive designs of Communism in Asia. lt has been said that we do not face any danger, that the Chinese Communists are probably agrarian reformers, that they do not readily migrate, and that they have no desire to come to this country. But we must look at what they are doing in Asia today. They have two objects in view. First, they endeavour to prove that democracy cannot work and that therefore the Asians must turn to Communism. An example of their determination in this direction is to be found in their attack on India. In India, under the leadership of Nehru, a powerful effort was made lo bring into operation a functioning democracy, but the functioning of that democracy had to depend to a large degree upon increasing industrialisation of that country and the raising of its standard of living. When India had prepared an immense plan to industrialise the country and to raise its standard of living it came under attack from Communist China, with the result that many millions of pounds that could have been devoted to industrialisation and to improving the food producing abilities of the people had to be diverted to the manufacture of weapons of war - tanks, aeroplanes, rifles and machine guns. That was all because of the determination of Communist China to prevent democracy from working in India and to force the people of that country to accept the situation that it would not be allowed to have peace or progress unless it adopted Communist rule. We have the same situation in countries like Vietnam. In those countries immense scope exists for action to be taken to improve the standard of living of the people and to give them a better way of life. But the Community are determined that the people in these countries will not have a better way of life. The Communists are determined that these people will be taught the lesson that only under Communism can they have peace. When we have people with immense resources who are determined that only under their political system can the people of Asia have peace, we have to say to ourselves: “ That situation involves imminent dangers to our own country.”

I have heard a lot of criticism of the effort that has been made in Vietnam by the Americans with the support of the Australian troops. Let us be quite definite about it. Ever since America made her strong effort, ever since she poured her troops into South Vietnam, and ever since Australia and other countries gave her support, there has been a most remarkable improvement in the morale of the South Vietnamese and of the people in the countries around Vietnam. Strong statements have been made by the ruler of Laos pointing to the interference by Communist troops in the affairs of his country. They were statements which he did not dare to make before the Americans placed their full resources in South Vietnam. Before that, the leaders of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand were afraid. They were looking at what was going to happen. They believe that if America was prepared to concede Vietnam, all that was left for them was to give up the struggle and go over to the winning Communist side. It is only since the strong effort has been made in South Vietnam that we have the situation in which these countries have been prepared to stand up on their- feet and show some fight. I therefore commend the American and the Australian Governments for assisting the South Vietnamese and for showing the people that they would, at least, help the people of South East Asia in their fight to remain free. In spite of the talk about the unwinnable war, talk which is repeated from the Hanoi radio in the hope of improving the morale of the Communist troops and of depressing the morale of the anti-Communist troops, I say without any hesitation that the war is winnable because it is a war in a just cause.

Of course, there are some people who are attacking the proposed conscription - 1 do not dodge the word “ conscription “ for one moment - who have principles which I respect, but there are other people who are attacking it because they think that it is a political gimmick that will win them votes. There are other people - and I mention in particular the Australian Communist Party - who are attacking conscription simply because that policy accords with the interests of the Soviet Union and Communist China. In 1943 when the Curtin Government proposed to introduce conscription, and there were grave divisions in the Australian Labour Party on the proposal, who would remember better than I could that the foremost protagonists of conscription were the members of the Australian Communist Party. They attacked anybody in the Labour Party who opposed conscription. The Communist Party was prepared to call up and send abroad every man in Australia for the purpose of saving the Soviet Union. When I find the Communists at the back of these mushroom organisations, such as the Save Our Sons organisation and the Youth Against Conscription organisation, I charge them with complete hypocrisy. Their views on conscription do not depend on what is good for the Australian youth. The views of the Communist Party on conscription today are determined by what suits the foreign interests of the Soviet Union and Communist China.

I regret all this talk that we hear about an unwinnable war. I regret the smears that are levelled at the Australian and American troops. Has there been one smear that has been made from this side of the House that has not been publicised in the Press? The American and Australian troops have been attacked because they used tear gas with which to flush the Communist troops out of their underground holes. It was suggested that this was unsporting - that they should have walked in the open up to these underground dugouts and been shot down in preference to using tear gas. Every conceivable smear, unjustified or not, has been levelled at the American and Australian troops. They have come from honorable senators on this side of the chamber. Everybody wants peace. Everybody would sooner see the Australian troops in Vietnam being entirely volunteers. But we have to face the situation that the Australian Labour Party in recent months has -done its best to ensure that young men would not volunteer for the Armed Forces. The members of the Australian Labour Party told the average Australian young man that this was an imperialist war. They told the average Australian young man that if he went to Vietnam - in the words of Mr. Calwell - he would be going into a morass of blood and slime. They told the average Australian young man that the troops in South Vietnam were killing women and children and that their attitude was one of making war on the civilian population. Was that the way in which to get the average Australian young man to volunteer for the Australian Armed Forces? If they believed that no Australian should be sent there - whether he be a volunteer or a conscript - why did not they say so? But all the time their attitude has been designed to evade issues.

First, they were against volunteers going to Vietnam. Then when the suggestion was made that national servicemen should go there, they turned around and said: “ We are against conscripts going. We ought to try to get volunteers to go.”

Senator Wheeldon:

– Who said that?

Senator McMANUS:

– It has been said repeatedly from your side of the chamber. I could understand them if they said what they believe in their own hearts - that no Australian should be there. Do not they believe that? Does Senator Cavanagh believe that?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes. 1 believe it.

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Cavanagh is prepared to admit it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– So am I.

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Wheeldon is prepared to admit it also. I welcome the admission because an attempt has been made to suggest that they would not mind volunteers going and that their sole objection is to conscripts going. But now we get the truth. They admit now that they do not accept the policy which has been announced by their Leader. Many of them believe that no Australian should be there at all. What I cannot understand is the manner in which they try to make out that they believe in one point of view and then they put another point of view. In recent days, I have heard some members of the Australian Labour Party who have been a little concerned about the reaction of the people to their attitude, say that while they do not want Australian troops to go to Vietnam, once they were there they would not let them down. That is true.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is what Mr. Calwell said.

Senator McMANUS:

– That has been stated by Mr. Calwell, Mr. Barnard and Senator McKenna. They have said that once the troops were there, they would look after them. They would see that they were supplied. I presume they would see that they were reinforced.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If necessary.

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Cavanagh says that the troops will be reinforced if necessary. We cannot get volunteers. The members of the Australian Labour Party have done their best to stop volunteers from going. Now they declare themselves to be members of an anti-conscription party and they are saying that if they are elected as a Government, they will supply the troops in Vietnam and will sent conscripts there, if necessary, in order to support those troops.

Senator Cavanagh:

– 1 did not say that.

Senator McMANUS:

– The honorable senator wants to change his mind. He now realises that he has let the cat out of the bag. But I repeat: If they say that they are not going to withdraw our troops from Vietnam and that they will supply them and keep them reinforced, there is only one way in which they can do it, and that is by conscription. Therefore, they have sold out their own story. They admit that they are prepared to send conscripts to Vietnam.

I do not mind those people in the Australian community who on principle are opposed to conscription putting their case. Obviously they are people who for reasons which appear sound to them - I respect their point of view - are opposed to conscription. But I am opposed to a party which was the first party in Australian history to introduce compulsory military training, which was the first party in Australian history to conscript troops for service overseas, and which was the first party in Australian history to conscript trade unionists and force them to work wherever they were sent, going before the people and describing itself as an anti-conscription party.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Is that wrong?

Senator McMANUS:

– It is wrong to call that party an anti-conscription party. I can remember in the days of industrial conscrip tion a prominent personality in the Australian Labour Party, known to Senator Kennelly, who obtained a top position in the manpower organisation and who, years later, would amuse his friends by telling them how he searched the electoral rolls for the names of all personal and industrial enemies, called them up, sent them to the most undesirable places in Australia and went down to the train to see them off and laughed in their faces. Senator Kennelly knows the gentleman concerned.

Senator Kennelly:

– It was not I.

Senator McMANUS:

– No. I absolve Senator Kennelly.

Senator Kennelly:

– But the honorable senator said that I was the person concerned.

Senator McMANUS:

– No, I did not. Senator Kennelly knows the gentleman concerned. I merely say that I strongly object to a party which condones and accepts that kind of thing going before the people and posing as an anti-conscription party.

I dislike conscription. For 10 years my Party urged that Australia’s defences be improved. In 196.1 we asked that Australia’s defences be doubled within the following three years. If that had been done we would have had enough troops to send to Vietnam without having to send conscripts. But our policy was not accepted and we now have reached the stage at which we accept conscription because there is no alternative to it. I point out however that in the emergency in 1943 youths were called up at 1.8 years of age and were sent abroad, as many honorable senators know, without training and without equipment. On this occasion at least it can be said that when they are called up they will not be sent to fight until they are 21 and they will at least be trained and they will at least have the equipment with which to fight.

Before I conclude there is one aspect of our foreign policy to which I wish to refer because I think it is an issue which has been dodged to date and which the Government of this country must face up to, namely, the sales of wheat and other commodities to Red China. I believe that this is the Achilles heel of the Governments’ foreign policy. How can the Government say to people: “ Your sons have to be made available to fight in Vietnam to hold back

Communist aggression stemming from Communist China”, while at the same time it is saying: “We will make every penny we can out of trading with the Communists”? The conscience of the Democratic Labour Party on this issue is clear. We have adopted the policy always of making a stand with our allies in Asia, in Vietnam, in Malaya and elsewhere, and we have always said that we should not trade with the enemy in the circumstances to which I have referred.

If the Australian Government wants to eliminate the confusion at present in the minds of many people it has to face up to the issue and look for markets elsewhere. Markets can be obtained. In the world today with the population increasing everywhere by leaps and bounds, who will say that there is only one quarter in which we can sell our wheat? I believe that the Government has a responsibility in this matter, and I believe that responsibility was very well summed up by a member of the Opposition, Mr. Kim Beazley, when he delivered what was called the Chifley Memorial Lecture in 1965 at the Melbourne University, despite the efforts of the leaders of the Australian Labour Party in Victoria to prevent him speaking.

Senator Wheeldon:

– What did they do?

Senator McMANUS:

– They tried to prevent him speaking. I know that Senator Wheeldon is not a fan of Mr. Beazley. On the subject of trade and ideology, Mr. Beazley had this to say -

Some of the arguments about the China trade can be intelligible only in terms of ideology and nol economics. So far Australia has opted for economics and not ideology.

Since China started her significant wheat trade with Australia in the -last few years China has purchased £286 million worth of wheat - some of it for resale for ideological reasons to such States as Albania, some of it as a substitute for rice exported at a higher price than wheat, thus earning foreign exchange for industrialisation. China has also purchased wool, lead and steel, all having some military significance.

The Commonwealth Government asserts China to be a danger diplomatically, militarily and ideologically, but strengthens all these dangers economically.

The ideological choice in Asia is between India and China-

I agree with Mr. Beazley on that -

If India can solve her problems in a democratic framework Asia moy follow democracy. If not, then Asia may go totalitarian. Australia could revert to the ever normal granary idea and divert the wheat trade in whole or in part to India, with deliberate economic losses for ideological reasons. This is an issue in an ideological age. And it is certainly a fact that “business as usual “ in an ideological age can threaten security.

I agree that the Commonwealth Government cannot adopt the attitude that it must take a firm stand in South East Asia to resist aggression from Communist China while at the same time aiding Communist China’s economy by these immense sales of wheat.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is our viewpoint.

Senator McMANUS:

– I accept that viewpoint. I have expressed it myself. I do not think the honorable senator can be wrong all the time; most of the time he may be, but not all the time.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Mr. Beazley is a Labour man.

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Mulvihill has referred to the gentleman whose state, ments I have been quoting. As the honorable senator well knows, there is a complete division in his Party. Some members would support Mr. Beazley and others would adopt the attitude that the policies he advocates are completely opposed to Labour principles. I support good policies when they are based on good principles, no matter where they come from. I conclude, therefore, by saying once again that we in Australia have no alternative but to support our American allies. Without their assistance our future security will be gravely endangered. However, I hope that our Government will clear up the confusion in the minds of many Australians, first, by stating clearly our aims in. Asia, and secondly, by stopping our trade with China which is one of the things confusing the attitudes of the Australian people.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

.- I must confess that I come into this debate with a great deal of reluctance. As you will realise, Mr. Deputy President, my reluctance is based upon your understanding and mine that a parliamentary system can operate only with a clear knowledge of the policies adopted by the Government and the policies expressed by the Opposition which is the alternative government. An Opposition must always seek to pose its policies. That is the basis upon which a parliamentary democracy conducts itself. I shall deal with the issues that the Government wishes to pose to the electorate in a few moments and it is proper that I should examine the policy that the alternative government is supposed to pose. I say “ supposed to pose “ because - this is my embarrassment - I do not wish to hurt honorable senators opposite. Judging by the Press reports that I have been reading this morning and this afternoon and what I have heard over the radio from time to time, the alternative government is involved in a problem of whether it really knows what its policy is. In this debate on international affairs, I have not heard one member of the Opposition either here or in another place - I have made an expedition from one end of this building to the other to discover whether in fact an alternative policy exists - say what is the alternative policy of the possible alternative government. The Opposition is seeking to posture to the Australian electorate that it has the right to be the alternative government. Yet on this fundamental issue which is now engage ing the attention of the Parliament not one suggestion has come from the Opposition as to what its policy is.

This afternoon and this evening we have had a great smokescreen put up. I understand why it is necessary to put up a smokescreen and why Senator Willesee, who is now entering the chamber, should stand up and make a great speech, filled with emotion - genuine emotion in his case. He finds himself in an extremity of the Opposition. He holds deep in his heart a real understanding of what Australia’s problem is. However, I suggest that he is not able to make his case good against other members of the Opposition whom we have learned to identify. This evening we have heard Senator Cohen and other honorable senators opposite explaining the case from their point of view. But nowhere can we get from members of the Australian Labour Party a consensus on their alternative foreign policy. Not one of them has said what is the alternative foreign policy of the Australian Labour Party, although in the secrecy of their cabals there are contending forces on their foreign policy. But the members of the Australian public are not allowed to see this.

In the Senate tonight we have seen speaker after speaker standing up and trying to divert the attention of the Australian electorate from the real issues.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Prime Minister has the responsibility-

Senator CORMACK:

– If a responsibility is placed on the Opposition it is the responsibility to pose an alternative policy in relation to the conduct of the nation’s foreign affairs and the protection of the nation’s integrity. What is the alternative policy of the Australian Labour Party? lt has never been stated. This afternoon we heard a whine by Senator Wheeldon from Western Australia. I am not condemning him because he is young. God help me, I have been young myself. He is entitled to be young. He is entitled to express the ingenue’s thoughts that sometimes spring from the young in relation to the responsibilities and powers of government.

Senator Devitt:

– The honorable senator has a load to carry.

Senator CORMACK:

– I agree that there is a load to be carried by members of the Opposition when they listen to Senator Wheeldon. There is also a load, an extremely heavy load, to be carried in respect of Senator Cohen. For example, in Melbourne last Saturday morning one of these front organisations that are engaging the attention of the Australian electorate at present was received as a deputation by Senator Cohen and some other people. The members of this organisation had been quite peaceful up to that stage. They had been walking along the footpaths, carrying a few placards. No-one was taking any notice of them. But after 20 or 30 minutes with Senator Cohen, they came out and rioted in Elizabeth Street. I do not want to draw any deductions from that, but I suggest that honorable senators may draw some deductions from the fact that at half past ten an assembly was peaceful and at half past eleven it was involved in a riot. That illustrates one of the curious elements of dichotomy in the Australian Labour Party. I must use that word because it is expected of me.

Before I go any further I want to draw a curious distinction which must not pass unnoticed. It is true, as Senator Wheeldon said this afternoon, that there is a great split in the Communist front; that General de Gaulle has recognised that the monolithic structure of the Communist International has disappeared; and that in fact there is a great split between China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Therefore it is nonsense for members of the Government parties to discuss the problem of the monolithic structure of international Communism, because it is split from top to bottom. Anyone who reads the newspapers - most of the electors do - will realise that at the present moment about 4,000 delegates from all over the world, representing the Communist Parties of the world, are assembling in Moscow.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Tito did not send delegates to Moscow.

Senator CORMACK:

– I am not interested in Tito. He is just a 1947 murderer of defenceless people. That is ail Tito is. He is a man who fomented a civil war in Greece in which there were 48,000 casualties in the Greek Army and 4,500 people were executed illegally by the Communist Party in that country. That is Tito, who is a hero to one element of the Australian Labour Party which is always seeking a new prophet in the Communist Party in order to get the Communist Mahomet off its back.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The honorable senator still wants to believe him.

Senator CORMACK:

– The honorable senator believes him all right. He has been quoting Mr. Tito, President Tito, Field Marshal Tito, or whoever he is, with his fancy women and alsatian dog whose photograph we see occasionally in the newspapers, as a sort of authority on right wing Communism. This is one of the oddities of these matters. I recall that during my first term in the Senate, in 1953, when I was discussing this problem of Communism the late Senator Grant, who used to sit near where Senator Gair is sitting at present - simply because of the choice of the President of that day, my friend Senator Mattner, and not for any ideological reasons - interrupted me and said: “Tito is a Trotskyite. He has nothing to do with the true heart and core of Communism.” What is happening in these ideologues in which we are involved at present is that there are about a dozen minor prophets all around the place, and whenever the matter of the heinousness of Communism comes up people refer to this priest over here, that archbishop over there, or that bishop over there. That is a very happy position to be in. In that position one can always quote Communist scripture against the devil. That is what members of the Opposition are constantly doing.

It is a most delightful position to be in. It explains the trouble in which members of the Australian Labour Party find themselves at the present time. They do not know what scripture to quote because so many people make conflicting quotations from the true blue scripture of Marxism. We see a situation in which Mr. Calwell is denying that Mr. Whitlam is competent to be the Leader of the Australian Labour Party and Mr. Whitlam is saying that Mr. Calwell is not competent to be the Leader of the Australian Labour Party. Of course, I say that the Australian Labour Party is not competent to be the leader of Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The people of Dawson proved that wrong the other day.

Senator CORMACK:

– The people of Australia are unable to discover what Labour believes Australia’s foreign relationships should be. I could spend the next 20 minutes tearing to shreds the juvenile expressions on foreign policy expounded this afternoon by Senator Wheeldon, but I have not time to do so. There is the great smokescreen of de Gaulle, for example. De Gaulle now becomes the authority of the Australian Labour Party. Once upon a time he was someone who had to be brought down. He was a terrible man, a man of the extreme right, but now honorable senators opposite say, because it suits their argument, that he as to be acclaimed. They say that we should follow de Gaulle and that the fact that he hates America proves that America is bad. This is the sort of non sequiter that the Australian Labour Party argues.

Today the Opposition has been putting up a horrible smokescreen in an attempt to cover up Labour’s incompetence to provide an alternative government in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in Asia today. The Opposition is very silent now. What courses are available to the Australian Labour Party? The first is that it should examine what constitutes the foreign policy of a nation, whatever the political colour of its government. What is the Australian Labour Party’s concept of how Australia’s national integrity should be maintained through its foreign policy? What principles does the Labour Party espouse in its foreign policy? One can examine, if one wishes, every item of information that is available from the secretariat of the Party, from its executives, or from the published statements of its members here or in another place, but nowhere can one find the principles on which it bases its foreign policy. Labour has not established principles on which it can sustain a foreign policy for the maintenance of Australia’s national integrity.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The principles of the Australian Labour Party were established at its Federal Conference a few months ago.

Senator CORMACK:

– It is a party without principles.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Why does the Government trade with China?

Senator CORMACK:

– I am not arguing about trading with China. I ask: When, in this debate on international affairs, has the Australian Labour Party enunciated the principles on which it bases its foreign policy? One cannot find them anywhere.

Senator Murphy:

– I will tell the honorable senator about it.

Senator CORMACK:

– There are several definitions of how a nation’s foreign policy should be constituted. I was talking today to a diplomat who said that the foreign policy of a nation is the totality of its interests. That is a wide and embracing definition. National interests have been defined as the general ends towards which a state acts. Surely that is a reasonable principle. But the Australian Labour Party proffers no principle on which it can base a foreign policy.

Senator Murphy:

– The honorable senator’s definition is a nineteenth century proposition.

Senator CORMACK:

– The honorable senator says it is a nineteenth century proposition, but I say there are only three options for the Labour Party in this matter. First, it can rely totally on the United Nations Organisation. Secondly, it can rely on allies. Thirdly, it can disregard both the United Nations and allies and rely entirely on itself. To be fair, I should add that a combination of all three of those courses is possible.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is it.

Senator CORMACK:

– Perhaps, but I ask the Opposition: What reliance can we place on the United Nations to maintain the integrity of Australia, For nearly four months I was an observer for this Parliament at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and my conclusion is that there is no hope for Australia inside the United Nations. That brings a gasp of dismay from some honorable senators opposite, but whether we like it or not the United Nations General Assembly regards Australia not as we acknowledge ourselves to be, a middle power, but as a major power for taxation purposes. Australia is among the IS largest contributors to the maintenance of the United Nations Organisation. So curious is human cupidity that the United Nations, in the mass, resents and hates Australia. This feeling finds expression in the attitude that many members of the United Nations take towards Australia in relation to the mandated Territory of New Guinea and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. But I go further than that: When a problem such as Vietnam comes within the ambit of the General Assembly it cannot make up its mind what should be done. It refuses to face the issue.

When the United States of America took the problem of South Vietnam to the United Nations, it was unable to obtain from that body any acknowledgment that the United Nations had any responsibility towards South Vietnam. The United States said, in effect, “Here is South Vietnam. This is the problem. We are putting it on your plate. Will you accept some of the responsibility? “ The answer, first at the General Assembly in November of last year and then at the Security Council in January, was that no responsibility would be accepted for South Vietnam.

I come now to the question of with whom Australia should ally itself in the interests of its own defence and national integrity - the principles on which, as I have said, foreign policy should be based, (s India a possible ally for the defence of ustralia? Are Malaysia, Indonesia or the Philippines possible allies in South East Asia? Honorable senators opposite, by their silence, acknowledge that those nations are not to be our allies - for whatever reasons they may have. Then who should be our allies? Our kinsmen in the United Kingdom? Senator Wheeldon said tonight, in effect, “ We cannot rely on them. They are not worth allying ourselves with.” Then he and his colleagues opposite say: “ Yes, we suppose the United States of America has to be our ally, but we should tell it what it is to do if we are to be its ally “. The fact is that we entered into an alliance with the United States, accepting a common responsibility.

The Opposition must acknowledge that in 1964 things were not looking very good. Confrontation with Malaysia was in full flower. Not one single senator sitting in this chamber was not agreeably surprised and happy when Mr. Harriman said that if Australia’s interests were menaced, the United States would defend Australia. That was said in 1964. Now the United States quite properly, under the terms of its alliance, has said to Australia: “Will you help us with this problem with which we are involved?” What do we get? Whines.

Senator Devitt:

– The United States did not say that.

Senator CORMACK:

– Yes. The third alternative open to the Australian Labour Party may toe expressed in the question: Shall we abandon reliance upon the United Nations Organisation? Shall we abandon reliance upon our alliance and rely on our own capacity?

Senator Devitt:

– Does the honorable senator say that America asked Australia to go into Vietnam, or that South Vietnam did?

Senator CORMACK:

– I said that in 1964 the Americans offered, through a statement made by the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Averill Harriman, that if any Australian territory were menaced, the United States would come to Australia’s aid in terms of the A.N.Z.U.S. pact.

Mr Devitt:

– That is not what the honorable senator said before.

Senator CORMACK:

– That is what I said. It is a two way traffic. Only last month, when the Vice-President of the United States was in Australia, he asked the Prime Minister and the Government to assist the United States in South Vietnam. We have honoured the obligation that is involved in the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. That is what an alliance means. In another place, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) has said that if the Australian Labour Party comes to power it will re-negotiate the treaty. What does re-negotiation mean? Is it to be re-negotiated by the likes of Senator Cohen, Senator Cavanagh and the honorable member for Yarra (Dr. J. F. Cairns)?

Senator Cohen:

– To which treaty is the honorable senator referring?

Senator CORMACK:

– Any treaty. That is what the platform of the Australian Labour Party says.

Senator Cohen:

– Which treaty are we to re-negotiate?

Senator CORMACK:

– Any treaty.

Senator Cohen:

– The honorable senator has named one.

Senator CORMACK:

– The honorable senator interjects and asks: “ What treaty?” I am not clairvoyant. All I said was that the Australian Labour Party has said that it will re-negotiate treaties. I am making the assumption that Labour will want to renegotiate the treaties of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, A.N.Z.U.S., or any other agreement.

We come to the problem in relation to our external affairs of whether we should rely on ourselves alone. It is the attitude of the Australian Labour Party that we should not have any entanglements whatever but should rely simply on our own efforts to defend ourselves. I am quite willing to acknowledge that proposition, but if we are to rely on ourselves, the amount of wealth and manpower that must be demanded by any Government from the Australian community must be far in excess of what is demanded at present.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Which country is likely to invade us at present?

Senator CORMACK:

– I am not answering Senator O’Byrne’s interjections. I do not mind answering the interjections of, for example, Senator Wheeldon. After all, he has some background of knowledge. The adolescent interjections that come from Senator O’Byrne are something else again.

Senator Henty:

– Is he one of the witless men?

Senator CORMACK:

– Does he support the witless men? That is the point. I suggest that a great amount of whining would come from the Labour Party about any deficiencies in our defence. I return to the alternative of reliance on our sole capacity for defence as an individual nation. It falls to the Australian Labour Party to state in clear terms its principles involved in what it means by “ foreign policy “. A foreign policy must be sustained by the capacity of the community to back that foreign policy.

The Australian Labour Party must tell the people what it is prepared to do for defence, having done nothing about it. It is not prepared to admit conscription. I have read to honorable senators opposite the British White Paper on Defence, which showed that there is a short fall of enlistments by volunteers in the British Army of Hi per cent. The British Labour Party has opted to say: “ We will not accept those commitments which are involved in our short fall on defence. We will discharge some of our commitments.” So what is involved in the policy of the Australian Labour Party and what it will not admit is that it is prepared to withdraw. I have referred to the United Kingdom in passing. I am saying that the only deduction that can be made from the present attitude of the Australian Labour Party is that it is willing to withdraw from what might be said to be the vital interests of Australia’s defence. If we have no allies, we must pay more.

I require two statements from the Australian Labour Party. I require an acknowledgement and a statement of the principles on which its foreign policy is based and also a statement of what it considers should be done in relation to defence if we have no allies. These principles have never been stated by the A.L.P. and cannot be stated because its members cannot make up their minds on either of these points. I have become a little heated, Mr. President. I am disturbed and distressed at the awful situation that has now been reached in this country. There is a posturing within the Labour Party which is supposed to be the alternative Government. It cannot be the alternative Government because its members cannot agree on any principle of importance to this nation.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– We have just been privileged to listen to one of the most distinguished members of the Australian Liberal Party presenting the case on behalf of the Government. In this chamber we have been used to bearing powerful speeches from Senator Cormack when he has been able to devastate opponents. We have heard such speeches when he has had something to work on, but tonight his effort has been deplorable. Here is a man of great intelligence, wit and capacity and he is not able to justify the Government’s case for sending Australian troops to Vietnam. We have heard some absurdities which I did not think Senator Cormack would descend to perpetrate in this chamber. He mentioned the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. He threw A.N.Z.U.S. into the ring and said: “ Here is Australia in Vietnam under A.N.Z.U.S. Why does not the Australian Labour Party face up and say that we must meet our obligations under A.N.Z.U.S.?”

Any person who has bothered to read the A.N.Z.U.S. treaty knows that it has no application whatever to the situation in Vietnam. It is only because Senator Cormack has no other argument to put forward that he must throw in this completely baseless suggestion. The A.N.Z.U.S. treaty covers armed attacks on any of the parties to it. Those parties are the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand. No one of any competence in international affairs - and we have no doubt that this includes Senator Cormack - would make such a suggestion if he could find any justification in international law for what we are doing in Vietnam.

Let us examine what has been said in this chamber as justification for our participation in Vietnam. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) said on a recent occasion -

Australian troops are in Vietnam as a result of requests for assistance from the South Vietnamese Government. They are there to assist that Government to resist aggression and are doing so very successfully.

That was said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What is said on this subject in the paper on international affairs which was presented on behalf of the Minister for External Affairs? It states -

Australia is part of this struggle because we cannot allow it to be lost toy default. We are not in it at the behest of any nation or group of nations. We are in it by our own choice and our own decision because the result is a matter of crucial importance to us.

Which of those is right? They cannot both be right; and the truth is that neither of them is right as I shall demonstrate. This distillation of conservatism which passes for a statement on international affairs is an insult to the intelligence of the Senate and the people of Australia. It is a fruit salad of pious platitudes, vague generalities, untruths and other odds and ends. The Australian people expect to be told in straight terms the role and the policy of the Government in international affairs, and we expect to be told in straight terms about the international relations which affect us. This ministerial statement is puerile, lt deals with Vietnam. It tosses in a few other matters such as E.C.A.F.E. and U.N.C.T.A.D.- the agencies with the almost unpronounceable initials - aid for India, aid for Indonesia and so on and this is supposed to be a statement on international affairs. There is a passing reference to the United Nations in the form of a pious statement that we will adhere to its principles and carry out its Charter, which we are not doing, and this is what passes for a statement on international affairs.

Our relationship with the United Nations is important. Our relationships with the United Kingdom and with the United States of America are also extremely important to Australia. These have not been dealt with in the statement and they ought to have been. Australia’s international relations are most profoundly affected by the actions of those two countries and you cannot have an effective understanding of our international relations unless you understand our relationship with the United Kingdom and with the United States.

To understand our relations with the United Kingdom, we must understand the role and the changing position of the United Kingdom in the world. We know that the predominant factor in the role of the United Kingdom in world affairs is the maintenance of the £1 sterling. This is the determinant of British action. It is the reason why the United Kingdom is retreating from commitments which it had previously all over the world. Britannia no longer rules the waves and it is foolish to pretend that it does. If Great Britain is to have any important role in world affairs, it must put its economy in order. No country can be powerful or independent if it is financially dependent. That is the position of the United Kingdom today. We know the United Kingdom £1 sterling is utterly dependent upon the support of the United States. We know that in the Suez crisis when the United Kingdom tried to take an independent role, whatever the rights or wrongs of that crisis, the United States requested it to cease and the United Kingdom did not. But the United Kingdom was forced to accede to the request of the United States when the United States began, through its government agencies, to sell £1 sterling in blocks of a million at a time. When the £1 started to crumble on the world markets, the action of the United Kingdom Government in Egypt ceased.

Shortly after Mr. Harold Wilson came to power in the United Kingdom, the £1 slipped. It was saved - and saved only temporarily - by the support given to it by the United States of America. This means that the United Kingdom is really not able to take an independent stand in any matter of international affairs which is the vital concern of the U.S.A. It is a financial prisoner of the United States. It is to the credit of the United Kingdom Government that it is endeavouring to restore itself to independence and a role in world affairs where it will be able to be independent and proud. Australia, because it is tied to sterling, is also to some extent in the same position We are dependent upon the decisions of the United States. In the modern world, finance is power. What is the good of looking at international affairs and reading diplomatic statements unless you look at the realities of power? We know that our country has to take decisions in relation to sending troops to Vietnam and doing other things because of the financial considerations which determine power in this world. Why put out a statement of this kind that we are now debating when it does not deal with these factors at all?

We know that the Government of South Vietnam is propped up. It is supported by the United States of America. I am nol saying for the moment whether this is right or wrong; but we know the Government of South Vietnam has no possibility of living independently. It is utterly dependent upon the support given by the United States as were the eight or ten Governments before it. How foolish it is to talk about Australia being in Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese Government. What nonsense is this. Why talk about the U.S.A. being in Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnamese Government? That Government is utterly dependent upon the United States, and if the United States is there, it is because the United States wants to be there. It is its decision. The Government of South Vietnam, by any man’s view, is a puppet government as have been the Governments before it. It is possible that the actions taken are correct, but do not let us mislead ourselves as to the realities to the situation, and that is what this form of puerile statement does. We should be ashamed of a Minister for External Affairs who would put this drivel before the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We have a great affection for the United States of America. That is based on our shared cultural heritage and our understanding of the working of its great constitutional system on which our own is closely modelled in many respects. The United States system of Government is the most stable, the most powerful and the best democratic system of Government yet devised by man. This Senate exists because of the regard which the framers of our Constitution had for the United States system of Government. Our admiration for the United States is not confined to its system of Government. The contributions of its Presidents, its legislators, its scientists, its writers, its artists and others to the advancement of its citizens and of humanity have been immense. We are firm in our affection for the United States. The Australian Labour Party is firm in its intention to carry out the commitments into which Australia has entered with the United States, and they include the treaties which have been referred to this evening. Our admiration, however, should not lead us to a belief in the infallibility of the United States Government, nor should it obscure our understanding of the changing situation in that country.

The United States has suffered many great changes. Some of these have been forced upon it by the world situation, but nevertheless they have grave implications. There has arisen in the United States a great military industrial complex. There are millions of persons employed, not only in the defence forces, but also in the great’ armaments industry. There are hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars invested in that industry. This is an inescapable fact. If we were to have peace throughout the world, if we were to remove the threat of war, there would be economic chaos in the United States. This is a consequence of the great armament’s industry being in private hands. We believe that such an industry should never be left in private hands to the extent to which it has been left in private hands in the United States, because this carries with it the gravest of implications.

President Eisenhower, in his final speech to the American nation in January 1961, pointed to the growth of this huge military industrial complex and warned the American people of the grave implications for their freedom and for the structure of their government involved in this situation. His words should be remembered, and I shall quote them to the Senate. He said -

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.

That is why what is happening in the United States, in its Senate, in its House of Representatives, in the demonstrations and in the teach-ins, is wonderful to see. However necessary it may have been in the situation of the United States, we have on the one hand this huge military industrial complex. It has a vested interest in the continuation of situations of war. No person in that complex, if he were sane, would want war to break out, but it is not the actions of one man or of a number of men that are significant; it is when there are many men, some perhaps engaged in small actions and others in actions which are not so small, that there is the snowballing which leads inevitably to war. No one man has caused it. Not even several men have caused it. It is the operation of a complex acting with similar complexes elsewhere which can produce a war situation.

If we look at the world situation and at what is happening near us, what do we see? It must be very disturbing to the Senate to see that the military industrial complex of the United States is supplying arms to Indonesia. The same complex is supplying arms to Australia, although some regard us as potentially hostile. The same complex was supplying arms, and a great deal of arms to India. The same complex supplied arms, and a great deal of arms, to Pakistan. In the war which broke out recently between India and Pakistan both sides were using armaments supplied from the United States.

Honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber may think this is a satisfactory position. On the other hand it may give them some reason to think. In Vietnam we know that both the North and the South have broken the Geneva Agreement. We know that there are a great number of people in the South who did not want to live under the government of the North. We know that is so ‘because they came down after the country was partitioned. We know also that a great number of people in the North did not want to live under the corrupt governments of the South. We know that elections were delayed and frustrated by the Diem Government. We know that there has been assistance from the North to the Liberation Front in the South. We know that assistance has been given to the North by the Chinese, although no Chinese soldiers have been permitted by the North to enter Vietnam. We know that there has been a succession of military dictatorships in the South. We know that there have been no free elections, either in the North or in the South.

All of these things are reasonably clear. They do not need to be obscured by all the nonsense that is put forward by the Government when it speaks about saving the free and independent South from aggression from the North. Why obscure the truth by this unrealistic approach? We know that the South is not free. We know that it is not independent. We know that the succession of governments which it has had have come to power by force and violence. We know that most of those governments, including the Diem Government, have been corrupt.

Senator Mattner:

– We do not know that at all.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Mattner interrupts, but we know that on the day on which the former Prime Minister of Australia described Diem as that brave, incorruptible little man, the South Vietnamese Embassy issued a pamphlet to all the members of this Parliament stating that he had been discovered to be guilty of a tremendous corruption - not only Diem but also his family.

We know that a great deal of the aid which has been commendably supplied by the nations of the world to South Vietnam has gone into corrupt hands, as it has in other parts of the world. These matters should not obscure the reality, which is that what has happened in Vietnam has become a threat to the peace of the world. I do not subscribe to the theory that this matter ought to be left simply to the people of Vietnam. It ceased to be a domestic matter in 1954. The world became involved, and if it is a threat to the world the world is entitled to see that there is a solution which does not continue to constitute a threat to the world. That is where the policy of this country ought to be clear, because when there is a threat to the peace of the world we have contracted not only with the United States but with almost all of the nations of the world to deal with such a threat by collective means through the United Nations. It is of no use our turning our back on the United Nations. If we do so, we are turning our back on our international obligations. Those obligations are more important even than the A.N.Z.U.S. treaty and the S.E.A.T.O. pact. Each of those treaties states that the parties to it are bound to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It is of no use our taking the tack that Senator Cormack tries to take here when he says that it is useless to go to the United Nations. The United Nations is the hope of mankind. If we are ever to stop the wars that have plagued mankind throughout the centuries, we will do so only through the United Nations. That organisation is the hope, not only of the little nations, but of all humanity and we ought not to turn our back upon it.

It is the policy of the Australian Labour Party that Australia must give unswerving and paramount loyalty to the United

Nations and seek to have carried out the principles of the United Nations Charter, in particular their application to the areas of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans. Senator Cormack did not look very far if he could not find a statement of the Labour Party’s policy. That policy is set out in simple terms in the Federal platform. Part of our policy is that we should co-operate with the United States in the areas of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans. We say that that is of crucial importance and must be maintained, subject to the understanding that Australia must remain free to order its policies in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We say further that Australia has a moral duty to co-operate in the development of the South East Asian area to strengthen the fabric of peace and freedom and to uphold the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, and to promote economic wellbeing and development. We say that Australia must take the initiative for the maintenance of peace and good relations between itself and its neighbours and the whole South East Asian area. Ought we not to be doing that instead of what we are doing? Why are our young people not being sent to Vietnam under the aegis of the United Nations? If they were being so sent, we would be very proud of the fact. How are they there? What kind of position is Australia in when the Minister who represents the Minister for External Affairs is asked straight questions in this chamber as to whether we are at war and is ashamed to say whether or not we are? Why is the Government ashamed to say that we are at war yet wants to send conscripts to Vietnam?

If this is a just war, if this is a war to protect the nations that surround Vietnam, why are they not sending troops to that country? We are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Why is it that, apart from the 50 or so troops that have been sent from New Zealand, no other nation of the vast British Commonwealth is prepared to send troops to Vietnam? Where are the troops from Canada, India, Pakistan and the nations of Africa? Where are the troops from the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom would not have any part in this war. Where are the troops from the other nations that are parties to the

S.E.A.T.O. arrangement? Where are the troops from France? Where are the troops from Thailand? Where are the troops from Malaysia? Where are the troops from Ceylon? Why are all these nations not prepared to put in even token forces such as little New Zealand did? Can it be that they do not believe in this war? If the war is just and if our position before the nations of the world is clear, why do we pretend that our troops are not soldiers but are instructors and advisers? Why is the United States still pretending that its troops are there as advisers and instructors? Sometimes in this chamber Ministers forget and then remember that they are supposed to say that these men are instructors and advisers. Why is this nation in the situation where its Government is ashamed of its own actions?

We need to be clear about our role in the world. We are a small nation with a great future. We are a small people occupying a great continent that is placed close to the other nations of Asia. Our duty is to be independent and to speak forthrightly. We ought to recognise the economic independence that we have. But if we are to speak with a voice of which we will be proud, if we want unanimity in foreign policy, then we must speak with an independent voice. We must speak with a voice that is based on truth and not double dealing and double talk such as this Government has engaged in. Members of the Australian Labour Party are unanimously opposed to the sending of troops to Vietnam. We say that the way in which a country such as ours should discharge its international obligations is to do as the United States ultimately did - to put the matter before the United Nations. We should persist. We should call for the nations to meet. It does not require the agreement of North Vietnam for the United Nations to take action. It does not require the agreement of China.

A nation such as ours not only should call on the United Nations, but also should call upon the United States to act in accordance with the principles that are set out in the Charter. Those principles have not been upheld. We have not followed the Charter; we have had no intention of following it. All we have done has been to speak with a weak voice. We have been spineless. The Government’s role has been to try to pretend to the Australian people that what it has done has been what the people want. But everybody knows that we are like little South Korea, which doubled its forces in Vietnam because of the aid that was promised and the concessions that were blatantly and publicly advertised. That country was told that in return for its decision a certain amount would be given to it, with so much paid down and so much given by way of loans. We are in the same subservient situation. Not until we get rid of this Government and have an Australian Labour government will we have a proud and independent voice. The people of Australia will then once again be proud of our role in international affairs. Just as once we were one of the leaders of the small nations, we will then again make our contribution to humanity and peace.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– Let me put Senator Murphy straight in relation to his claim that the United Nations should be called upon to settle this dispute in Vietnam. I do not know what we are to do in the meantime. I do not know whether we are supposed to surrender Vietnam to the Communists. I have before me a statement that was made by U Thant, the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, who made some effort a little while ago to obtain a negotiated settlement in South Vietnam.

He reported to the United Nations that in his view no useful purpose would be served in involving the United Nations in the Vietnam conflict. What is the reaction of the Chinese and Vietnamese Communists to the United Nations? According to the Chinese Communist “ Red Flag “, the Communists have bluntly rejected any “ meddling by the United Nations “. Chou En-Lai, the Premier of Communist China, has stated -

China holds that in any international conference on the Indo-China question only the National Front of Liberation can represent the South Vietnamese people.

He said that his aim was to smash the peace talks. How is the United Nations to deal with people like that?

Debate interrupted.

page 374

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 March 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1966/19660330_senate_25_s31/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant