House of Representatives
12 August 1954

21^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN VISIT OF MR. CLEMENT ATTLEE
QUESTION
- DUTCH NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- SOUTH-EAST ASIA
QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- GRASSHOPPERS
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS TRADE
QUESTION
- MILK,
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- URANIUM
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- LAND SETTLEMENT OP EX-SERVICEMEN
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- BURDEKIN RIVER BRIDGE
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- CHILD WELFARE
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
QUESTION
- STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE
ROYAL ‘COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE BILL 1954
- Second Reading
OBJECTION TO RULING
ROYAL COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE BILL 1954
- Second Reading
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
- Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 5th August, 1954
INDO-CHINA
- Indo-China Settlement -
- South-East Asian Treaty Organization. -
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
ADJOURNMENT
- Mr. O’sullivan or Mr. Dalziel;
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Royal Australian Am Force
- Manus Island
- Asian Students

– The Prime Minister, on a matter of policy.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– In reply to the honorable and gallant member, I do not propose to discuss policy at this stage.

page 210

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the incident which is reported to have occurred last night in the corridors under your control in this building, Mr. Speaker, will you consider amending the Standing Orders so as to provide that matters of this kind may be settled amicably on the floor of the House, which would be in the interests of honorable members who have ringside seats?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The first point is that any proposal to amend the Standing Orders is not a matter initially for my consideration. Such proposals are for the Standing Orders Committee and the House to consider. However, there is a Standing Order which provides that the

OVERSEAS TRADE

Mr PETERS:
BURKE, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me of the value of imports to this country for the month of July this year, and the value of exports for the same month ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is obviously a question for the notice-paper.

Mr PETERS:

– I thought it was so important a matter that Ministers would have the details at their fingertips.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– It is a question for the notice-paper, but I shall see the Minister for Trade and Customs and arrange for the statistics required by the honorable gentleman to be made available

page 212

QUESTION

MILK,

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture advise me of any possible alleviation of the present serious position which confronts some of our exporting industries, which are facing extinction because of the keenness of overseas competition? I refer particularly to the industry that produces such milk products as full cream powder and skim milk powder. I understand that a demand for these products still exists overseas, but we cannot sell in overseas markets because of Australian production costs. Can the Minister suggest any means to assist in the disposal of those commodities, at least until we can increase absorption of them in the home market?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The honorable gentleman has referred to a problem that has engaged the attention of the Government, and particularly of my own department, for some time. It is true that whilst world demand for many of our export products has not diminished, our overseas markets have fallen off. The primary explanation for that is that our exporters of processed food products are, in respect of a number of lines, unable to quote prices that are competitive with similar exports from other countries. This condition must be traced back, in part, to the Australian cost structure. Government officers have been engaged in a study of such problems and, in respect of processed milk products, the Government has been in consultation with the

Processed Milk Manufacturers’ Association of Australia Limited. In fact a conference was held in Canberra last week, and another conference will take place at an early date. Every possible step within the control of the Government is in contemplation, and will be taken as quickly as possible to help in this situation. I issue a word of warning to those who think that a simple solution of this problem is for the Government to buy surpluses and give them away to what are called the food hungry sections of the world’s population.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– That is a simple solution.

Mr McEWEN:

– I remind the House, and interested parties, that although we have some very modest undisposable surpluses of some products, the United States of America has a positive mountain of them. If the world should engage in a give away campaign, all our normal trade would be completely dislocated, because the United States of America would also engage in a give away campaign in our traditional markets. I see the prospect of nothing but chaos for a number of Australian industries if we surrender our status in argument against such a campaign as that which exists to-day, because we have refrained from giving away goods, and face such a campaign as that I have referred to.

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture a question that is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Gippsland. I realize the complexities of the situation, but with thought to the giving of assistance to Asian countries through the Colombo plan and also to the special needs of southern Viet Nam owing to the recent influx of large numbers of refugees into that area, will the1 Minister investigate the possibility of making available to southern Viet Nam a quantity of processed milk, thereby providing food for the unfortunate people of the area’ and at the same time assisting the dairying industry?

Mr McEWEN:

– The honorable member has put that point of view to me on a number of occasions, and I have had some study given to it. It appears to hold some possibility of aiding the Asian countries which, are members- of the: Colombo plan and, at the same time, aiding, perhaps, the processed, milk industry in this country without infringing, the general principle to which I referred a little while ago on whether the Government should indiscriminately purchase and’ give away foodstuffs., I hare had discussions with the: Minister for External’ Affairs on the matter. If those Asian countries were to, ask for basic products, such, as processed) milk, and were prepared to offset the cost, of such products against the financial assistance that is given, to them under the Colombo plan, perhaps that would be a- feasible arrangement. As I have said, the- matter’ is. being studied by the- Minister for External Affairs- and myself.

page 213

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he will give serious consideration to the payment of a commission to- newspaper vendors and’ other shop keepers who are willing to sell postage stamps. At present any person who wishes’ to give this service to the public is compelled to pay 2s. 6d. to obtain a licence, although he has no chance of recovering the licence-fee. Many people in my electorate are compelled to pay a sixpenny tram fare each way in order to get to the nearest post office to buy a stamp. If the Minister will not consider the payment of a commission for stamps sold, will he consider attaching a stamp machine to’ each public letter posting box?

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am afraid that I cannot consider the payment of such a commission, because to have stamps on. sale in a shop attracts custom to that shop and,, indeed, shop keepers are very glad to have the right to sell stamps. I shall consider the other question that the honorable member has. asked.

CHILD WELFARE

Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In response to a request that has been made to me “by a body of responsible citizens in my electorate who are attempting to raise funds to assist sub-normal children, I ask the Minister for the Interior whether the News and Information Bureau would make a film, in consultation with the best authorities available, along the lines - of the very fine films that have been made in order to assist deaf children and spastic children. Committees have been set up in many areas throughout New South Wales for the purpose of raising funds to assist sub-normal children. If films of the kind that I have suggested were made they would enable such committees to make their appeal on a nation-wide basis.

Mr KENT HUGHES:
LP

– All proposals for the making of films are placed before the National Films Board which determines the priority of films to be made each year. On the last occasion that I saw the list of suggestions that had been received by the board it covered five foolscap pages of typescript. The number of such suggestions that is received is almost incredible. I shall be pleased to place the honorable member’s suggestion before the National Films Board. However, I believe that it is more a matter for State film centres than a matter for this Government, having regard to the fact that the States have the direct responsibility of making provision in their hospitals and schools for sufferers from ailments of the kind to which the honorable member has referred.

page 216

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to the statement made in this House by the honorable member for Wannon to the effect that industries m his electorate, particularly at Warrnambool, are most unstable as the result of action that has been taken by the Australian Government. I ask the Minister whether it is possible that -the honorable member for Wannon has overlooked the alarming strangulation of the policy of decentralizing industries as a result of the action of the Victorian Labour Go vernment ‘in imposing road ^transport restrictions and record high railway freights.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– :The honorable member himself has provided an excellent and completely accurate answer to his question.

page 216

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) .agreed to-

That Standing Order 2.1 bo amended n.« follows: - After “ Chairman of Committees,”’ insert “ the Leader of the House, the Deputy Lender of the Opposition,”.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I ask for leave to amend my notice of motion in relation to the appointment of the Standing Orders Committee by adding the words “five to form .a quorum”. In explanation I point out that Standing Order 27 -provides that the quorum of a standing committee shall be three unless otherwise ordered. Lt is considered that a quorum of three is inconsistent with the importance of the Standing Orders ‘Committee and its increased membership of eleven and that, as nas been done in the case of the Committee of Privileges, the quorum should be fixed at five.

Leave granted.

Motion (by Sir ERIC Harrison) as amended, agreed to -

That Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Chairman of Committees, the Leader df the House, the Deputy Leader df the Opposition. Mr. W. M. Bourke, Mr. Tom Burke, Mr. Clark, Mr. Costa, Mr Joske and Sir Earle Page be members of the Standing Orders Committee; ‘five to form a quorum.

page 216

ROYAL ‘COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed from .the 11th August (ride page 162), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the bil] be now read a second time.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– The importance of this bill is great. I think the House should understand that the measure contains no fewer than 28 clauses to deal with one specific royal commission. The validity of the commission was attacked in the High Court of Australia by Lockwood, one of the witnesses; and the decision, was. given in favour of the Commonwealths I mention, in passing, that it was. an ex parte, application. The Commonwealth was not called upon to justify the validity of the. act. In view of all the circumstances, it is. important to see why it is necessary for the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to introduce: the bill in this form, with the adoption of all the sections- of. the Royal Commissions Act that are thought to be necessary and the. application of them solely to this one royal commission.

We. can. sum. up the. difference between the existing law on the subject- and the provisions of this bill in a few words. The bill provides- for the alternative penalty of imprisonment to the- penalty of a fine that may be imposed by a magistrate under the act in connexion with offences, such as the offence of refusing to answer relevant questions or not attending in obedience to a subpoena. But I do not think that, in itself, can be the reason- for the- introduction of this bill. I am now dealing with the illustration’ which the’ Prime Minister took in his speech. Lockwood, refused: to answer a question. If it was a relevant question, he was: liable to prosecution for his refusal to answer. Proceedings were taken in the High Court, and the case was dismissed. Therefore, so far as validity was concerned, the matter was free to be taken to prosecution. Indeed, this bill expressly provides that antecedent breaches of the law can be made the subject of legal action. If there is a genuine intention on the part of the Government to- enforce those provisions of the law, why was not Lockwood prosecuted? It may be that, in this case, the Government seeks the penalty of imprisonment. The Government wants answers to the questions which arc directed to witnesses. Lockwood was1 liable, I think, to a fine of £500 under the original act. But, nothing’ was done..

I believe that the reasons for the introduction of this bill must be sought elsewhere. One of the reasons may be that the question asked of Lockwood was about his authorship of a documentknown as exhibit J.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I am not prepared to allow the right honorable gentleman to discuss matters that are happening before the royal commission.

Dr EVATT:

– I am merely saying exactly what the Prime Minister has said. He has! mentioned this- particular matter.

Mr CALWELL:

– Before I put the motion to the House, I again point out that the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia exists because of a decision by a previous Parliament. That was a unanimous decision. As for document J, which has been imported into the discussion in this House, the House does not know anything about that document except what it has learned from the press. Only the royal commission knows the contents of document J, and that commission, set up by an act passed earlier this year, has not yet reported to the House on document J. Until that has been done, I consider that I should be failing in my duty if I allowed any discussion about matters that have been deliberately handed over to the royal commission for investigation.

Question put -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 58

Majority . . . .10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 223

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE BILL 1954

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 219).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr. Calwell) put -

That so much of the Standing Orders he suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) from concluding his speech without interruption.

The House divided. (Ms. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 59

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Ordered -

That the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) he granted an extension of time.

Dr EVATT:

– When the Royal Commission on Espionage was mooted, we on this side of the House pointed out that the chief object of a government in dealing with espionage or offences against the safety of the country should be to secure the prosecution of the guilty parties, that innocent people should be cleared, and that all possible action should be taken to ensure that the good names of innocent persons should not be injured or smeared. We understood that the Government and all concerned concurred in that view. These factors in proceedings before this royal commission, and others of a similar type, depend entirely upon the discretion of the commission. It is essential that the procedure adopted in giving notice to persons, and acquainting them with the allegations against them, shall as nearly as possible conform to the principles that prevail in courts pf justice throughout the British Commonwealth.

I do not suggest for a moment that the royal commission is not a court. It might appropriately be called an investigating authority sitting in public, whereas the police and the security service, doing similar work, act in private. But in this instance the investigating authority is composed of judges who were appointed because it is thought that they will observe the practices and principles that are acknowledged to be vital to the processes of British justice. In this instance, the Government seems to take the opposite view that, because this inquiry is not a court, the distinguished commissioners shall not apply the rules that hundreds of years of experience have proved to be necessary to the administration of justice under our judicial system. I shall not elaborate by referring to details of the evidence. Action will have to be taken either by the royal commission, or by Parliament through future legislation, to ensure that the punishment of guilty persons shall not be set aside, as has happened in some of the States, in which royal commissions almost invariably achieve nothing, and also that the persons who are named iri the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Espionage and are proved to be innocent shall not be ruined merely by their being called before the commission. We must keep those points uppermost in our minds. Clause 16 concerns the power to sit in private. That power should be available in certain rare types of case, but it is well established as a principle of law that it is serious to adopt this procedure. I quote from a decision of the Privy Council, the highest court of justice in the British Commonwealth of Nations, as follows: -

It is needless to quote authority on this topic from legal, philosophical, or historical, writers. It moves. Bentham over and over again. … In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice.

It follows from that decision that selective justice denies complete justice. I quote further -

Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.

That is the very basis of justice. It is the reason why, at an earlier stage, I referred to the disclosure of portions of documents little by little. The public knowing nothing of them, rumour takes charge of the situation and names are mentioned. That must not be allowed in a British country. The full contents of the documents are sure to come out in the end. A summary of a notorious document is now in circulation, and I believe that the complete document is in select circulation, though the commissioners will not allow publication.

Mr Ward:

– Why have they refused to allow publication?

Dr EVATT:

– They have made their decision and I cannot canvass it. Publicity ensures that justice shall be done. The quotation from the Privy Council decision to which I have just referred concludes as follows: -

The security of securities is publicity.

The Argus newspaper, a leading Melbourne journal, declared recently -

The Argus does not doubt the sincerity of the judges who form the Petrov Commission, but it does not agree that the discrimination they arc practising in permitting public mention of some names, while concealing other names, is justified by any argument.

We believe that most Australians are puzzled, if not angered, by the Petrov Commission’s exercise of its powers to protect some individuals, while other individuals are “ smeared “.

Is public opinion going to tolerate this thing?

My observations are not intended to constitute an attack on the measure by the Australian Labour party. The royal commission is bound to proceed, and the bill is almost a replica of the Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933, under which witnesses who refused to answer relevant questions might have been prosecuted. Why have they not been charged ? What will happen to the two witnesses whose names were mentioned by the Prime Minister? I believe that they have not been prosecuted for the reason that if they were charged the complete document would be submitted to the court before which they would be taken, and no court of justice would convict a man for refusing to answer a question relating to a document that was not relevant and the contents of which were not made known to the public.

I pass now to the consideration of the important rules relating to contempt of court. The bill seeks to alter the provisions of the existing law relating to this question. I do not object to the heavier penalties and the alternative punishment proposed if it is thought fit that they should be inflicted. A magistrate would not necessarily inflict imprisonment for a first offence. A penalty was already provided in the principal act. The basic rule relative to contempt of court in pending proceedings is that no newspaper or individual may publicly organize and promote the case that is to be put in the court by a particular witness or witnesses. But since the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Espionage began, the Government and the security service have been flouting this rule. The two main witnesses have been glamorized, and, if their photographs, by some mischance, do not appear in the first editions of the daily newspapers, it is announced at the week-end that a threat to assassinate them has been made. Those two witnesses are continually boosted and vamped up. The real question before the royal commission is the extent to which those witnesses have told the truth, and this can be tested only by crossexamination and probing on all points. 1 say advisedly that the probe necessary to get at the truth has not been made. It is not a question whether evidence has been concocted, but it may be a question, whether parts of the evidence have been unduly emphasized or partially distorted. Every one experienced in’ the law courts knows that this is a most important consideration. The facts must be ascertained by probing. The Australian Labour party wants to ensure that the guilty persons shall be punished, and it does not want innocent people to be smeared. It is not sufficient that, many months after a person’s good name has been called into question, it might be cleared by the royal commission’s report. In the meantime, ruination faces innocent people.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Did the right honorable gentleman think of that about the Australia First bunch?

Dr EVATT:

– Yes; and but for me they would not have been released. The Vice-President of the Executive Council himself, and the Prime Minister, paid a tribute to me for the action that I took in that matter. I suggest that the VicePresident of the Executive Council should cultivate a memory in spite of the seniority that he now enjoys.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The right honorable gentleman’s extended time has expired.

Mr Ward:

– I desire to move -

That the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) be granted a further extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That course cannot be followed under the Standing Orders.

Mr Ward:

– Then I should like to move for the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders for that purpose has been defeated.

Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava

.- As one who has practised in the courts for a period of nearly 40 years, I place implicit faith in our judges. They are doing their duty to the best of their ability to preserve the time-honoured traditions of the administration of justice. The proceedings before the royal commission which is covered by this bill are taking place before three judges of Supreme Court standing, and a great part of the remarks which the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has just made really amount to criticism of the way in which the commissioners have been conducting the commission. I do not believe that the right honorable gentleman, if he still retained those judicial qualities which it was at one time believed that he possessed, would be capable of making criticism of that kind. But, of course, when one descends - I use the term deliberately - into the political arena, one, apparently, forgets the high principles which a judge possesses. I do not think that any one who appreciates the high regard in which judges are held by most people in the community, will agree for one moment that the Leader of the Opposition had any right to make the derogatory remarks which he has made with respect to the royal commissioners.

Clause 24 of the bill provides that a person shall not by writing or speech use words calculated to bring the commission, or any member of the commission, into disrepute. This measure has not yet become law, but I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition went beyond the scope of fair criticism and that, in fact, he endeavoured to bring the commission into disrepute. It is a well-recognized fact that members of a royal commission in the course of carrying out their duties are liable to criticism, even severe criticism, provided that it be fair and based upon the facts; but once one goes beyond the bounds of fair criticism one becomes guilty of an offence, and, properly, becomes liable to punishment. That distinction should be borne in mind. When this commission was about to be brought into existence the judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria refrained from accepting an appointment of one of their number. Basically, it was considered that judges by becoming royal commissioners rendered themselves subject to criticism of a kind that might affect the prestige of the Bench. That conclusion on the part of those judges was based largely on the ground that if they accepted such an appointment they would enter the political arena and would be criticized not in respect of the way in which they had done their work as commissioners but on the basis of politics. They concluded that those whose politics had been hurt by their findings would criticize them in an unfair and improper way with the result that the prestige of the Bench might be injured. Indeed, the bar of the State of Victoria upheld that view in a published statement; and it is unusual for the Committee of Counsel of Victoria to make a public statement except when it feels that such action is well warranted. The committee believed that on this occasion it was well warranted.

I believe that it is proper for judges to accept appointments as royal commissioners. Indeed, I think that the Leader of the Opposition himself appreciated that point. It i3 a matter of history, accepted over the centuries, that judges should accept appointment as royal commissioners; and judges have acted as royal commissioners in respect of many important, and political, subjects. One need only instance the trial of the Princess Caroline when she was charged with misconduct. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England were among the royal commissioners appointed. I recall also that three judges sat on the Parnell Commission which dealt with a subject that was extremely political. One could cite many other instances.

The view taken by the judges in Victoria is understandable and will receive a great deal of sympathy. Nevertheless, it appears to me to be too narrow altogether. Such views are based partly on the ground that judges should only be called upon to give decisions as between parties and that the general power of inquiry should not be given to them. That view is not entirely accurate even from a strictly legalistic point of view, because in many inquiries, for example, under the Companies Acts, the judge sits merely as an investigator. The other point is whether the prestige of the Bench is actually affected through judges sitting on royal commissions. Although it is conceivable that that prestige can be affected in the opinion of people who believe that criticism should never be made of judges, nevertheless the persons best qualified to act as commissioners in respect of matters of great public moment and matters affecting national security are judges. It may be said that an eminent barrister, or a retired judge, would be equally suitable. I doubt the wisdom of that contention. I believe that an eminent barrister or a retired judge does not enjoy the standing possessed by a judge who is on the Bench when he is appointed to a royal commission. The reason the public expects judges to be appointed to royal commissions is that judges in carrying out their duties in the administration of justice invariably act with decorum, detachment, impartiality and independence. That is always to be expected of judges. Indeed, the fact that a judge, in accordance with historical practice, sits on a royal commission, indicates that the public is most satisfied. The appointment of judges to a royal commission is not likely to affect the principle so long as they exhibit the qualities that I have mentioned.

I believe that the people consider that this royal commission has been conducted properly and that the prestige of the Bench will be enhanced by reason of the fact that the judges, who are members of the commission, are rendering a public duty. The fact that a man becomes a judge does not absolve him from his duties as a citizen, and he should continue to carry out those duties which, as a matter of constitutional practice in this country, have been commonly carried out in the past by judges.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that he considered that people were being smeared in the proceedings before the royal commission. Almost in the next breath, he objected to the conduct of proceedings in private. That is a matter entirely at the discretion of the commissioners. No doubt, they have perfectly valid reasons why they should hear certain matters in private, and certain matters in public. At any rate, that is not a matter for this House. We have given the commissioners authority to sit in private, should it become necessary and proper for them to do so. It is for the commission to decide how it will conduct its proceedings. Provided the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the decorum, detachment, impartiality and independence that I mentioned earlier, no criticism of the commission should be forthcoming from this House.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- I frankly admit that I do not profess to possess the great legal knowledge that has been acquired by men like the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) or the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske). However, the layman and the laywoman, in this instance, are as deeply concerned about espionage activities in Australia as are members of the legal fraternity, and, therefore, this debate should not be restricted to a discussion of the legal position. The speech of the honorable member for Balaclava contained evidence of a great division of legal thought about the course that proceedings are taking in the hearings of the royal commission. An analysis of his speech reveals that he took the Leader of the Opposition to task because the right honorable gentleman had dared, in perhaps a covert way, to offer some criticism of the royal commissioners. The honorable gentleman then dealt with what I describe as some legal technicalities when he referred to the refusal of justices of Victoria to make themselves available for appointment as royal commissioners.

Mr Gullett:

– That is not correct.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is correct. The honorable member for Balaclava said that, in his opinion, the attitude adopted by the Victorian justices was wrong.

Mr Joske:

– I said that I sympathized with them, but-

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the honorable gentleman proceeded to point out that, in his view, their decision was wrong. There are no degrees of judicial integrity. Either we believe in the integrity of judges, or we do not. The honorable member for Balaclava has made that position clear. If we believe in the integrity of judges, we should ask ourselves this question : Why did the Government hand-pick the judges whom it appointed to the royal commission, and say that certain other judges, who were recommended to it, were, in its view, not suitable for appointment? This Government claimed, from the outset, that there were degrees of good judgment among judges. The Government did not accept the recommendation of a judge by the government of a sovereign State. The Government cannot run away from that fact. It is the first authority in Australia to cast a reflection upon our judges. I shall refer briefly to the circumstances. A State government recommended to the Commonwealth a judge whom it believed to be best fitted to sit on the royal commission.

Mr Whitlam:

– The original recommendation was made by the Chief Justice of Queensland.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was about to mention that fact. The Menzies Government is the first authority in Australia to throw a cloud over the integrity of our judges.

Mr Gullett:

– That is not true.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true. This Government has decided that all judges are not equal.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Nonsense!

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I challenge any honorable gentleman opposite who is a member of the legal profession, to express his view about the passing over of a Queensland judge, who was recommended by the Chief Justice of that State for appointment to theroyal commission.

Mr Ward:

– What was the Government’s objection to Mr. Justice Townley?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before any brickbats are thrown in this matter, let the Government examine its own house. The honorable member for Balaclava claims that our judges are above criticism. I state emphatically that when espionage is involved the people’s government of Australia should make provision for a thorough examination of the whole matter.

Mr Bowden:

– The Government is doing so.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Let us examine the bill, with particular reference to clause 8, to see whether the Government is doing so. The paramount matter to be borne in mind is that the subject of this debate is espionage, and not aliquorinquiry in New South Wales. Espionage is one of the highest matters of national importance to every citizen. The Royal Commission on Espionage can be inquiring into the activities of the emissaries of only one enemy, a political enemy of the worst type that the world has ever known. I refer to communism, and its infiltration into Australia.

Mr Hamilton:

– Does the honorable member propose to discuss clause 8 of the bill?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall do so now. The clause reads, in part, as follows : - (1.) The Chairman of the Commission may, by writing under his hand, summon a person to attend the Commission at a time and place named in thesummons, and then and there to give evidence and to produce any documents, books or writings in his custody or control which he is required by the summons to produce.

In my view, the ambit of that clause should be widened to provide that the commission must - not may - summon before it every person who is named in any of the documents in its possession.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– What is the difference between “may” and “must” in this matter? The honorable member is splitting straws.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Because a document is in circulation in many parts of Australia to-day, as a consequence of Communist propaganda, that is said to be similar toa document in possession of the royal commission. I daresay that every honorable member has a copy of it. The document is circulated for public perusal, and three members of this Parliament are concerned in it in some way or other, because theirnames are before the royal commission.

Mr Haworth:

– Upstairs or downstairs ?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not concerned about that, but a high principle is involved in this matter. Those three honorable members should be named, and summoned to appear before the royal commission, regardless of the consequences.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– How does the honorable member know that they will not be summoned to appear before the commission ?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The responsibility for that matter should not be left to the discretion of anybody, evan a royal commission. The .great difference between espionage, and almost any other matter, is that national security is involved in espionage activities. This Parliament should issue a direction to the effect that every person who is named in the documents must appear before .1 he royal commission, and declare his attitude. The Prime Minister nas stated that the Government has preserved, in the main, in this legislation, the ordinary rules in relation to royal commissions. When a matter of paramount importance, such as espionage, arises, those provisions are insufficient. Some elements of national security are more important than others, ‘and the ascending order of importance may be likened to the rungs of a ladder. In such a comparison, espionage, in relation to national security, may be described as the top rung of the ladder. This Parliament should insist, by legislative enactment, that every person who is named in the documents shall appear .before the royal commission. The faith of the people in our .democratic institution may well be. shaken if such a provision is not incorporated in the Ml. Those honorable members whose names have been besmirched by rumour may well regret, in the years that .lie ahead, their failure to insist that the innocent be protected and the guilty brought to justice. Surely nobody can be happy while .the names of Australians mentioned in Communist documents submitted to the royal commission are withheld from the public. For all I know, the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison), Who sits opposite me at this table, may be named in one of the documents “before the commission. There may even- “be two Harrisons on the list. Both the Minister and I may be involved. At any rate, I, for one, want to know whether the other Harrison in this chamber is mentioned, and, if so, what part he has played in relation to Petrov and his activities.

Mr Costa:

– One Harrison used ito he in the New Guard.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– He could not be on both sides, surely!

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is all very well to bandy words .across the chamber, but this is a serious matter. The Minister has said that he could nor be on both sides. Let us analyse that remark. The nian who is the backbone of the royal commission has been on both sides, and even now may be secretly on both sides. I am not satisfied that Petrov is not still playing the Communist game in Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman cannot discuss that issue.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am sorry if I have offended, Mr. Speaker, but there is no game ‘so low that the Communists will not play at it. That is why I say that the normal procedure of royal commissions is not sufficient to deal with .communism in Australia. 1 agree with the Leader of the Opposition

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The honorable member is having a ‘bit each way. j thought he disagreed with his leader.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– ] agree with what the Leader of the Opposition .said about .clause 16.

Mr Hasluck:

– What does the honorable member think of clause 23?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall discuss clause 23 and clause 24 later. Let us not hurry over clause 16, because it is important. It provides that the commission may take evidence in private. I believe that any inquiry into communism, whatever form it may take, should be .completely open to the press and the people of Australia.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– So .that the whole of our security organization could be exposed to the Communists’? The honorable member is not concerned with security.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I had intended to ignore interjections, but I shall reply to that challenge. If the security service had been doing .the job for which it was established, Petrov would not have reached the stage in his espionage activities that he did reach. He could not have done so if our (security organization had been .sound.

Sir Philip McBride:

– Read the evidence.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We are not allowed to read the evidence.

We trust our judiciary, but we must remember that Communists will descend to any depth, and it may well be that evidence taken in camera and withheld from the public would be counteracted by the truth if it were brought into the open where everybody could read it. People with knowledge of the facts would be able to come forward and tell the truth. During the course of this week, the House has debated at length the general subject of international affairs, and honorable members on both sides have freely acknowledged that communism is the menace that we have to face. Had this Government been sincere, it would have insisted that all facts related to espionage and communism which were made available to the royal commission should be presented as publicly as possible. If light were thrown on everything said in evidence before the commission, the people of Australia would be made to understand the danger of communism and espionage. I do not propose to quote from the opinion of the high British authority that was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition in support of his plea that the procedure of other royal commissions in taking evidence in private does not justify secrecy on the part of the Royal Commission on Espionage. I maintain that secrecy in this inquiry is wrong.

The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) has asked me to state my views on clause 24. That clause goes further than the existing provision in the Royal Commissions Act on the subject of offences against a commission, but clause S and clause 16 will not confer upon the Royal Commission on Espionage any greater powers than are already contained in the Royal Commissions Act. If it be necessary to extend the normal procedure in clause 24, I submit that it must be equally necessary to extend the provisions of clause 8 and clause 16. It is inconsistent to declare that the existing law is inadequate in one respect without facing the realities and acknowledging the inadequacies of the law in other respects. Especially is this so when we are seeking to deal with espionage and communism.

Section 6o of the Royal Commissions Act lays down a penalty for any person who, by writing or speech, uses words false and defamatory of a royal commission. Clause 24 of the bill provides that there shall be a penalty for any person who by writing or speech uses words calculated - . . to bring the Commission or a member of the Commission into disrepute.

We had in this chamber to-day a classic example of such misconduct when the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) suggested that the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition might well come within the terms of that provision.

Mr Hasluck:

– Hear, hear!

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Let us analyse that statement by the honorable member for Balaclava. The Leader of the Opposition based his speech on two main points. The first point was the necessity for conducting the commission’s inquiry in the open instead of behind closed doors. In support of his argument on that point, the right honorable gentleman quoted the views of one of the highest authorities in the British Commonwealth. The honorable member for Balaclava said later that, by quoting that authority, the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition fell under the terms of the provision that I have quoted from clause 24.

Honorable members on the Government side of the House should not imagine that they can defeat communism by using the methods of Communists. The terms of clause 24 betray a fear on the part of the Government that there will be a smear campaign against the royal commission by the Australian Communist party. The Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933 apparently does not. go far enough in the Government’s view in relation to offences against the royal commission, but the Government appears to believe that, in other respects. the act is adequate. I do not wonder that the judges of Victoria adopted the attitude towards serving on the royal commission that the honorable member for Balaclava mentioned. They showed sound sense in making their decision.

Mr Pearce:

– Perhaps they had a crystal ball.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At any rate, whether they had a crystal ball or not, they knew the sort of government that would be in control of the commission. They did not want to have anything to do with the inquiry because they thought that it would become a political affair.

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The honorable member is making heavy weather of it.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On the contrary, the Opposition has clear and definite reasons for its attitude to the bill. We say without hesitation that the whole inquiry should be thrown open to public scrutiny. We say that those persons who are named in documents that have been submitted to the commission must be brought before the commission. Members of Parliament whose names appear in any of those documents should be examined, whether they sit on the back benches of the chamber or hold office as Ministers. We object to the fact that they will not be called before the commission and. publicly examined.

The three members of Parliament named in one of the documents are probably the most important people in Australia in relation to this inquiry into espionage. They were elected to this Parliament by the people, and they should be the first persons to be examined before the royal commission. This is not a minor matter. It affects the safety of the nation. I know that Government supporters will say that the provision in clause 24 to which I have referred is copied from our industrial arbitration law. I am aware of that fact, but does it mean that the Royal Commissions Act 1902-1933 is not strong enough to protect the judges ? Section 6o of the act states - (1.) Any person who … by writing or speech uses words false and defamatory of aRoyal Commission . . . shall be guilty ofan offence.

Why is that not wide enough to protect the Royal Commission on Espionage ? Is the Government afraid of criticism from some source other than the Communist party? If it were not, it would have insisted that everybody named in any document submitted to the commission should be brought to book and made to prove himself innocent or otherwise.

Mr Pearce:

– Ah ! The onus of proof !

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The onus of proof in this inquiry should rest upon persons named before the royal commission. Government supporters appear to be losing sight of the fact that espionage at this stage of our history can be associated only with communism. That was the burden of my remarks at the outset of my speech. It is communism that we are trying to deal with. The Government is too weak in its approach to this matter. That is why it has provided that at least some of the proceedings of the royal commission shall be conducted secretly. But that suits the Communists.

Mr Leslie:

– Why did the Labour party oppose the Government’s plan to ban the Communist party?

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Make no mistake about it, before we are finished with Communists in Australia, we shall have to control them in one way or another.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- This is a bill to make possible the effective functioning of the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia. It is, of course, an auxiliary to the original act that was passed in the closing stages of the last Parliament. That bill was passed by this House unanimously, but it is nevertheless fair to say that it was passed with very litle show of enthusiasm by honorable gentlemen opposite. The royal commission, as we know, and as the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrision) has pointed out, is dealing with a matter that is of the greatest importance to this country. Our security and our very existence as a democracy are dependent on the degree to which we can protect ourselves against treasonable activities. To me it is simply staggering that with a measure of this great importance before us - and honorable gentlemen opposite admit its importance - we have not heard from the once great Australian Labour party in this place one single word of support for the royal commission, or for these additional actions that are necessary to make it effective.. Neither from the. Leader of: the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) nor from the honorable” member for Blaxland was there one word of commendation of this allimportant measure. As for the right honorable gentleman himself^ unfortunately, and entirely by his own doing, we heard very little of what he proposed to say, because, with the assistance of honorable members beside and behind him, he wasted his speaking, time arguing against the ruling of the Speaker. So, unfortunately, we did not hear very much from him-

Mr POLLARD:

– That was the fault of the Government side of the House.

Mr GULLETT:

-Whether it was our fault or not, we can endure the result. Only at one stage did he reveal his true feelings about the bill and the actions that preceded it when, in. the closing stages of his. remarks, with all the passion, fury and indignation that he could command, he threw charges against- the royal commission. Never did- he express support for the royal commission or for the measures that are to be put into effect. Indeed, no man has more reason to support this, measure than has the right honorable gentleman, who might have been Prime Minister of this country if things had turned out differently. I say straight out that the attitude of honorable, members opposite, to this bill is amazing, in view of the importance of the measure. Their attitude, however, is understandable in view of some of their affiliations.

I think it is high time that somebody opposite got up and said straight out whether the Labour party supports this bill or not. The two- members of the Opposition who have spoken so far in this debate - the Leader- of the Opposition and the honorable’ member for Blaxland - have suggested that the commission smeared certain people and that, as a result of the passage of this additional legislation, certain characters appearing before the commission will have their- reputations smeared. “Well, why not?’ The commission is conducting an inquiry into treason in this country, nothing more nor less than that, and it is to me unthinkable that its inquiries should fail because of lack of power to compel people to’ come before it and give an honest, straightforward answer j “Yes” or “No”, about their activities. It is too bad if people are smeared. They will- be more than smeared, let us be clear about that. Reputations will, be completely destroyed, 1 trust, when the activities of certain people have been exposed as a result of this inquiry. If. honorable gentlemen opposite fear that, let them say so. I am quite certain, and it becomes more appa. rent as the debate goes on, that that is their real objection to this legislation. They object to it because it will make the inquiry really effective and enable us to find something out as a. result of it. As far as I, and other honorable members on this side of the House, are concerned, there is nothing new about the principles of the bill. Broadly, they will compel people to answer questions under penalty of imprisonment for three months or a fine of £500, and will give counsel certain protection, which, as the law stands, they do not now have. “What possible valid objection can there be to those provisions? I am waiting for honorable members opposite to tell us why they are unable, at this juncture, to come clearly out in support of this measure or, if not, to advance some reasonable objections to it. We do not know a great deal about the attitude of honorable members’ opposite except that they certainly have not expressed support for the measure. However, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), who comes from what I might describe as the “red corner”, will soon be making, his views on this subject perfectly plain to us, and I have no doubt that he will follow his usual tactics of sneering at the judiciary and general smearing-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable’ gentleman may not anticipate what the honorable member for East Sydney may say.

Mr GULLETT:

– I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I think it can hardly be described as anticipation, because what I have forecast is, reasonably certain, as we both know. Still. I might ask the honorable member for East Sydney whether he will be speaking for the labour party on this subject. “Will he make clear whether or not his party supports the bill? We hear a great deal about the existence of certain antiCommunist elements in the Labour party, and I know that .among honorable gentlemen opposite .there are many who have worked against communism within the trade unions *and within their own party. T think it is fair to say that these people should not keep quiet at this juncture. They should support the bill, or advance some reason for not supporting it.

I see no cause for a long debate on the bill because it is such a simple measure. As I said at the outset, it deals with something about which nobody who has the real security of this country at heart can have any doubts. It is to me a matter of great alarm that we have heard to-day no expression of support for the measure from those who sit as Her Majesty’s Opposition in this House. This is the third occasion in the life of the Government on which criticism of action that the Government wished to take to combat communism has been voiced. I think that it is time that honorable members opposite cleared their minds, and for once supported the Government in relation to a measure that is designed to deal with a great threat to our national security.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

.; - It has been .enlightening to listen to the remarks of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). I thought that we were attempting to gain some degree of unanimity here. The honorable member’s remarks, however, seemed to be designed to egg on the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) to make statements .about judges. I thought that the honorable member for Henty was in the House when the Leader of the Opposition .(Dr. Evatt) spoke. If i.e was, and did not understand the burden of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, I tell him very definitely that we on this side of the House support .this bill absolutely.. I could not say more than that. I. can also say to ‘the honorable member that the Leader of the Opposition has said the same thing -though perhaps in not quite the same .terms. Honorable members opposite laugh at that statement. I remind them that the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) used a large number of words in 11is speech, .but I cannot recall for certain that he stated that .he supported the measure, lie had a great deal to say -about the integrity of the judiciary, and alleged that the Leader of the Opposition had attacked either the judiciary or the royal commission. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition did anything of the sort. Unfortunately, the rules of the House, and your ruling, Mr. Speaker, deprived the Leader of the Opposition of the opportunity to explain his case fully. I am not blaming you for that, Mr. Speaker. The rules of the House are to blame. The speaking time of the Leader of the Opposition was taken up . by debate on a motion of dissent from your ruling, and on a division. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition make at considerable length, in the Labour party room in this building, certain statements regarding the bill, that, if made in this chamber, would be applauded by the people generally.

There has been nothing to complain about in the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to this measure. All honorable members, whether they see eye to eye with him or not, know that the Leader of the Opposition is one of the great protagonists in this country of the rights of the individual. We all remember that during his term of office at the United Nations the right honorable gentleman was famous as a champion of the rights of the individual. In this House to-day he was again attempting to protect the rights of individuals. I do not always agree with the right honorable gentleman about the lengths to which we should go to protect certain people. Honorable members know that I am not exactly the ‘kind of person who is looking for a fight. But I take the view that strong measures are necessary to deal with people who play underhand or mean tricks. I know that if a man struck me below the ‘belt before I had an opportunity to protect myself, I would not hesitate to strike him in return. This bill refers particularly to Communists. The Communist believes that the end justifies the means, and is prepared to use any means to -achieve his aim. Treasonable activities are a matter of extreme moment to the security and defence of this country. Defence against people who would undermine us is is of the greatest importance. We must protect the interests of our country and ensure that people who may be attempting to undermine it are properly dealt with. An exRussian official has made a statement which contains imputations against all sorts of people. When the Prime Minister told the House of it and said that the Government considered that a royal commission should be appointed to investigate the matter, we on this side of the House unanimously supported the proposal. We believe that it is necessary to get to the bottom of these things, and take such action as may be necessary. At the same time we must not forget that too much reliance must not be placed on all statements made by a man who has admitted that he was prepared to go to any lengths to obtain in Australia information that would be valuable to his own country. It is necessary to be careful not to put too much trust in anything such a person might say in order to gain safety for himself. Some honorable members in conversation with me have described the man concerned as a “ grouper “. He was with the Beria group in Russia and when that group was destroyed by another group that came into power-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman is now starting to discuss the main witness before the commission. That is a matter which is in abeyance in this place. It was handed over to the commission as a result of legislation passed by this Parliament.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I understood that this bill was to make provision for an inquiry into something that had happened. I do not want to enter into any controversy or discussion about that man, but I submit that there is a section of this bill which we consider gives too much power. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to direct the attention of the Government to the fact that the terms of the measure might intentionally injure somebody. One honorable member said to-day that every name on a certain document before the royal commission should be broadcast. I do not. claim that any name should be broadcast. We have set up a commission of gentlemen of the highest integrity, and surely it is for them to decide whether they will publish certain names to the world, and whether, if they do so, they will injure innocent people.

The honorable member for Henty asked whether the Opposition was supporting the bill. The position is that the Leader of the Opposition said that there were 28 clauses in the measure, and that only one sub-clause of one clause needed further consideration by the Opposition and the Government. I say that that sub-clause may be dangerous. Of course, we all may have different opinions about that, but the Leader of the Opposition is a very learned legal gentleman, as is the honorable member for Balaclava, and 1 would not attempt to set my opinion against theirs because of the small amount of knowledge that I have of judicial proceedings. But I say that we have to be careful when putting into a measure an important power, the operation of which may injure some innocent person. The Leader of the Opposition stated that in the Royal Commission Act, which set up the Royal Commission on Espionage, power was given for action to be taken in summary jurisdiction against anybody for refusing to answer a question. Now the Government proposes, by this measure, to give power to the Royal Commission on Espionage, or to the High Court itself, to take the action that could previously be taken only in summary jurisdiction. Possibly the Government’s legal advisers may believe that it is necessary for the court and the commission to have this power in order that it may conduct its proceedings in a proper way, and achieve the results that it was set up to achieve. But I point out that honorable members of the Opposition were quite honest in their opinions that further consideration should be given to paragraph (e) of clause 24. We put it up to the Government that it should further consider that matter, and if upon further consideration it should decide that the sub-clause is necessary we are prepared to accept the measure and pass it. The honorable member for Henty stated in this House, and, through the broadcasting system, to the nation, that the Labour party’s attitude in this regard had something suspicious in it.

Mr Gullett:

– Of course it has.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Some honorable members on the Government side are like some of those on the Opposition side who had also said that there is something queer in this measure. Some honorable members of the Opposition believe that this bill is not a real measure to deal with espionage in Australia, but is merely an instrument to attack the Labour party. I do not say that, but I put it to the honorable member for Henty that just as be believes some honorable members of the Government think that the Labour party’s attitude towards the measure is rather suspicious, so do some members of the Opposition believe that the measure itself is suspicious. After hearing the attack made by the honorable member for Henty to-day, we are entitled to wonder whether the Government is concerned only with espionage, or whether this measure is merely another attempt to vide the old horse of communism against the Labour party. The honorable member for Henty said that the honorable member for East Sydney came from a red section of Sydney. The honorable member for East Sydney represents an industrial electorate in Sydney, and part of the Sydney waterfront is in that electorate. I am in a similar position in ray electorate of Port Adelaide. My electors are the same type of people as are those of the honorable member for East Sydney, but there is no question about their support for me. They do not support me because I am a Communist. In fact the Communists write their slogans against me on footpaths and fences right throughout my electorate. They call me “ Thompson the strike breaker “ and write letters about me. Yet I do not suppose that at the last general election any honorable member was returned with a greater majority than I had. Sometimes a Liberal candidate stands against me and sometimes not. When a Liberal candidate does not stand against me the votes that are cast for the Communists in my electorate increase in accordance with the proportion of Liberal votes that would have been cast against me. I regret the element that has been imported into this debate by the honorable member for

Henty and others, merely in order to throw suspicion on the Labour party and to deride the Leader of the Opposition, who is living up to his reputation of the protector of the man at the bottom against any attack that may be levelled at him from the top.

We must carefully watch the position of communism in this country. After this Government had set up the Royal Commission on Espionage, in the closing stages of the last Parliament, and certain evidence had been taken before the commission and certain statements made by it, I wondered if a Communist candidate would stand against me for election. However, he did, and at the polling booth that was strongly Liberal at the previous election the Communist vote increased from IS to 74; This time _ a Liberal candidate did not stand against me, so it is pertinent to ask where the additional votes for the Communist came from.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must return to a discussion of the bill before the House.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I submit that my statements are relevant to the measure. The honorable member for Henty was given enough latitude to attack the Opposition and to insinuate that we were not anxious to fight communism, so surely it is just for me to refute those allegations. I am always ready to take up any challenge of that sort. I hope that this bill will be passed, and that the Royal Commission on Espionage will be given full power to do whatever is necessary to deal with espionage in this country. If there is anything in this measure that should be reconsidered, and the Leader of the Opposition has stated that there is, then I hope that the Government will take notice of the Opposition’s warnings. Of course, the Government may say that a provision similar to paragraphs (e) of clause 24 was inserted by a Labour government in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1947. I admit that, but it is quite apparent that no harm has come from it. However, in different circumstances the same type of provision may operate differently. It may have no harmful effect in one measure, but may be the means of interfering with innocent people in another.. Personally, I support the bill, and the Labour’ party supports it. We do not- want to see this country undermined in amy way. We do not want any foreign espionage here.. At the same time we must be careful to ensure that we do not injure the reputation of innocent people..

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– May I assure’ the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) that I agree that within the ranks of his party there are a number of members, even a majority of members, who are sincerely and genuinely opposed to communism. Indeed, I believe that there is a smaller proportion of members who are even prepared to fight against it. But I think that there are other members who can be said to fall into neither of those categories. We should remember that the Royal Commission on Espionage was not set up with the primary objective of punishing the guilty, although we hope that they will be punished. Nor was its primary objective the clearing of the innocent, although it is important that the innocent should be cleared. The commission is more important than that. It is directed to the safety of Australia by seeking’ the truth about, those who are fighting against us, and against the free world. The act is concerned with the factors that make for the life of our people^ or with countering the factors which make for the death of our people. Justice is important, indeed it is vital; but in all cases we should not condone the greater injustice in order to guard against the lesser. Where is the justice in children, women and men lying dead in the shambles plotted against us by our enemies ? Can we be too tender about a small thing, if in fact the life of our nation and of all the individuals who comprise it is in jeopardy?

I was impressed in this debate, as I had been previously impressed by The speeches of the members of the Opposition, with the existence of a double standard in these matters. There is an extraordinary tenderness for the full technicalities’ of justice when there is any question of curbing Communist activities’. In the other issues’ of life, there is not the same fine1 feeling for- the nicer points. It is1, important that people should not be smeared1, but if there- is some temporary smearing it will be. removed as the royal commission proceeds. Is that a reason to impede the effective working of this commission,, which is concerned with something, that touches the lives of all of us and which is one of our protectors against injustice to our millions of people? The ordinary administration of justice carries these same risks. Do we say that there should never be an action at law because the witnesses might be innocently smeared? Do we say that no prosecution should ever be. launched because an innocent man might be accused? We know that those possibilities are inevitable in all the affairs of life. We cannot avoid all injustice, but we must avoid in every case the greater injustices. We do scant service to ourselves, to Australians and to our moral feelings, if we promote the greater injustice for the sake of the lesser. The Labour party always has this double, standard in dealing with communism. That it does nol; invoke that standard in any other matter is one. of the things to which this House, and the country, might well direct attention., In regard to the royal commission, which is the subject of this bill, we have a duty to do two things. The first i= to set for the commission clear, unequivocal and sufficient terms. The second is to invest the commission with the necessary powers and protection for the proper exercise of its authority. I, and all other right thinking honorable members, will sincerely welcome this bill because, of its approach to those two matters.

As the Prime Minister (Mr; Menzies) explained in his second-reading speech, the legislation which this bill is designed to amend was. rushed through the Parliament because of an imminent general election. It was necessary to act’ quickly before the Parliament was dissolved. For that reason, we have, had to take- two bites at. the cherry: I am wondering- whether we should not take greater precaution lest we are called upon to take a third bite. I refer in particular to clause 5, which empowers the commission to proceed in the terms of certain letters patent which are set out in the schedule. During thi inquiry other matters, which we- cannot foresee,, may become relevant because various witnesses offer certain evidence from time- to time. If that is so and if it becomes necessary to extend the letters patent, I am not certain that clause 5 would apply to the new letters. In those circumstances, it might be necessary for the Parliament to take- a third bite at- the cherry and pass further legislation. I make that statement with some reservation. Doubtless honorable members have read sub-paragraph (a) of the letters patent. That sub-paragraph refers to -

The information given to the Commonwealth by Vladimir Mikhailovich Petrov as to the conduct of espionage and related activities in Australia and matters related to or arising from that information.

I shall indicate soon why I think that, in at least one respect, we should be going a little beyond that and omit the words “ in Australia “. It may be that some of the statements that Petrov will- make to the commission are relevant to events outside Australia. It. is perfectly true that the act could be amended at a later stage if it became necessary to take that third bite at the cherry, but the Parliament is. not always in session. International events move rapidly at times. We should avoid the risk of any emergency that may be caused by the necessity to extend the letters patent when the Parliament is not in session.

I make those statements knowing very well that I am not trained in the law and that I am ignorant of the details of the laws of evidence. I do not remember even having heard the name “Petrov” before it was. mentioned to the House last April: But I think that I can claim reasonably that I have made a study of and have a certain knowledge of the general principles that guide the Communist party and the mechanism of subversion which they employ. We may find that the terms that are outlined in the letters patent are not wide enough. One of the guiding principles of the Communist party is the combination of legal and illegal activity. Any one who has not studied the application of that principle cannot effectively oppose^ the Communists. They claim to be acting legally when it suits them and they act illegally when it does not suit them’ to act legally. The combination of those two activities becomes- very difficult to combat in a democracy such as ours: It is not sufficient to think that we can deal with communism always in terms of the established concept, because the mechanism of Communist subversion has been designed specifically to operate within that established concept. In some cases, new methods may be necessary to combat this virulent force. It is; of no use to us to think that we are winning this fight. Both here and elsewhere we are losing it, and we shall continue to lose it while we confine ourselves to those, weapons which the Communists want us to use and which Her Majesty’s Opposition demand that we alone shall use in the fight against communism.

The combination of legal and illegal activity has been witnessed in the Communists’ conduct before the Royal Commission on Espionage and in their conduct elsewhere. I shall not discuss the documents that are before the commission, but the Communists’ idea is to bring forward charges that are fallacious but smearing in the hope that something will stick. The Communists, by accusing people of being implicated in their plots, have sought to confuse the issue that is before the commission. That is the Communist line, and it .becomes very potent when there are legal forms which require the publication of information and propaganda that they wish to disseminate. Some of the documents that have come before the commission have been written with a view to publication. It is a little distressing to find Her Majesty’s Opposition falling, perhaps in all ignorance, for the Communist line and demanding that the things which the Communists are trying to do should be done. Perhaps honorable members opposite have done so because they have not studied the Communists’ tactics, because they do not realize the ends that the Communists are trying to achieve and because they do not realize that in the proposition which they have submitted to the House they have played into the Communists’ hands. Either honorable members opposite have learned from the Communists or, to some extent, the Communists have learned from them, because some honorable members opposite, in particular the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) make a practice of employing similar tactics in this House and of making personal attacks that have no relation to political matters in order to cut down their opponents. It is fair to say that, both in this chamber and out of it, the honorable member for East Sydney has worked so assiduously in that manner that he deserves to be called the Lockwood of the Australian Labour party.

We must understand also the Communists’ habit of splitting their activities into various parts. That has been seen in relation to espionage in Canada. It was disclosed that a person might be a full agent but still be ignorant of the operations of another full agent at his right or left hand. I hope that those who are conducting this inquiry into espionage in Australia will keep in mind that principle of organizing compartments or cells, which is one of the evil but powerful methods by which the Communists promote their ideas and influence. I am reminded that even in Czarist Russia there was a security service which was remarkably well informed about the movements of Communist agents and all the little details of their lives. The one thing that it did not know was the nature of the Communists’ activities in principle. The result was that the whole system, including the very basis of the security service, was struck down by the advancing Communists. It is essential that, not only should we know the details, but also that in interpreting them we should know something of the principle they are following. Espionage does not consist merely in the communication of information to the enemy. It has a darker and more sinister side. Tt consists partly in the moulding of top policy and public opinion in the manner in which Communists want them to be moulded. If the Communists ensure that the policy which we describe as being antiCommunist plays into their hands, they gain their point. They give us little victories if they are defeating us on the bigger front. There was a time, and one time only, a few years ago, when the communication of information in relation to atomic research was of vital and primary importance to Russia. In general, the communication of that information is not now Russia’s main instrument of espionage. Its main instrument of espionage has become the control of conscious or unconscious instruments in top places and the control of the public approach to the main issues with which Russia is really concerned, quite apart from the camouflaged issues with which she would seem to be primarily concerned.

Let us examine the situation that existed at that time. The Prime Minister, in my opinion, acted improperly and certainly not in accordance with established practice in this country. Neither he nor the security service advised the Leader of the Opposition about what was happening. The Prime Minister came into this House without the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition, and after making certain statements, declared that it was the Government’s intention to appoint a royal commission to investigate these matters. Once the declaration was made to the Parliament and to the people that the Government possessed certain information, the real damage was done; and there was no turning back. The only alternative was to establish a royal commission. But let me suggest a course of action which, I believe, would have been much more effective, straightforward and acceptable. When the Government became possessed of information, regardless of the source from which it was obtained, that espionage was being carried on in this country, the essential thing for it to do at that stage was to keep that information perfectly secret, while the security service proceeded with its investigation and gathered evidence, and when the officers had obtained information that incriminated certain people they should have raided the premises of those people and seized all relevant documents. This action should have been followed by the laying of specific charges against the persons concerned. But what did the Government do? It appointed a royal commission. That body was established some months ago, and it will be many more months before it makes its report. In the light of that report, the Government will decide upon the action that it will take. But if anybody has been engaging in espionage, the result of appointing a. royal commission will have been that those people have been given prior notice of what the Government intended to do. If any incriminating evidence was in existence at the time that the Prime Minister made his announcement, what may have happened to it in the meantime? I express no opinion about the information that the Government claims that it has in it3 possession because I do not know the nature of that information; but, whatever it may be, the Government used it to create a situation favorable to it in order to gain a party political advantage and in doing so, jeopardized the security of this country. I make that challenge to the Government.

Let us now consider the peculiar action of the Government in appointing the royal commission. I shall not reflect upon any member of that body. The commissioners have been appointed. But has there not been a departure in this instance from established practice in this country in the appointment of that commission? I have always believed that when the Australian Government desired to appoint a royal commission and wanted a State to make available a judge, or judges, for that purpose, the practice was to approach the Premier of the State concerned, who, in turn, referred the request to the Chief Justice in that State and then the Chief Justice decided whether a judge of his Bench could be made available. What happened with regard to Mr. Justice Townley? The Prime Minister approached Mr. Gair, the Premier of Queensland. Incidentally, Mr. Gair did not select Mr. Justice Townley as honorable members opposite, who have taken part in this debate, have implied. That is not so at all. Mr. Gair referred the Prime Minister’s request to the Chief Justice of Queensland, Mr. Justice Macrossan, who agreed to make Mr. Justice Townley’s services available. However, for some undisclosed reason - the people have not yet been informed of it - Mr. Justice Townley was deemed by the Prime Minister to be unsuitable to sit on this royal commission. Whether Mr. Justice Townley is unfitted for that task, I do not know. In fact, I had not even heard of him prior to this matte]- arising. But if he is deemed to be unfit to sit on a commission, he must necessarily be unfit to sit in any jurisdiction in this country. The Prime Minister’s rejection of Mr. Justice Townley reflected not only upon Mr. Justice Townley, but also upon Chief Justice Macrossan, of Queensland, who selected him for this purpose. Why has not the Government made some statement on that matter?

When we are considering a bill under which it is proposed to extend the powers of the royal commission, we must necessarily examine the manner in which the members of the commission are discharging the powers that have already been vested in them. I direct the attention of honorable members to the schedule to the bill in which appears the letters patent. We find that the commission is charged to inquire and report upon, among other things -

The information given to the Commonwealth by Vladimir Mikhailovich Petrov us to the conduct of espionage and related activities in Australia and matters related to or arising’ from that information.

How did that information come into possession of the Government? What moneys were paid over, and for what purposes were they paid? The Government is as silent as the grave on those matters. When I have asked the Prime Minister, time and time again, to inform the House of the date on which he became aware of the payment of thi3 money and whether he authorized such payment, the right honorable gentleman has replied that it is a matter of security and is now the subject of proceedings before the royal commission. The people will want to know the circumstances under which that money was paid, why it was paid and whether the payment was made with the Prime Minister’s authority. When did he become aware of what was happening? The commission will not perform its functions properly unless and until the Prime. Minister is called to give evidence before it and be submitted to crossexamination in respect of those points. When he made his announcement in this Parliament, without giving any indication of the nature of his declaration to the Leader of the Opposition, he suggested that he had not been able to advise the Leader of the Opposition because he himself had practically only just become aware of what was happening. If we can ascertain when this money was paid over, it can be proved one way or the other, whether the Prime Minister had some prior knowledge of the matter. Is it seriously suggested that £5,000 of the taxpayers’ money was paid over by a Commonwealth officer without the Prime Minister knowing anything about the matter? I do not believe that that was the case. The Prime Minister must have known about the matter because surely such a large sum of money could be paid over only with his authority.

I shall not refer to proceedings before the royal commission. I pass to a particular document which counsel assisting the commission declared to be a “ farrago of lies, filth and falsities.” I am wondering why the Government is so anxious that the full contents of that document should not be made known. If it is what it has been declared to be, why has reference been made to selected parts of it? It is amazing that a declaration of that kind should have been made at the outset of the commission’s proceedings.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is now dealing with a part of the proceedings before the commission. He has quoted certain terms that have been used by counsel. He is not in order in proceeding along those lines.

Mr WARD:

– Is this not one of tie things that the commission was to investigate? Until the commission has some evidence to refute the information contained in the document, the document should not be ruled out entirely. But counsel has gone through the document and selected one or two names which indicate that the source of some of the information contained in it were certain members of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition. I point out that it has been said that the names of 70 persons are mentioned in that document, and every one of those persons, or none at all, should be mentioned or called before the commission to give evidence.

I also make reference to the fact that certain evidence can be heard in camera at the discretion of the commission. Why are some witnesses able to exercise such great influence that they are able to keep their names from publication, and give their evidence in private? The same right is not conceded to other persons.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is now reflecting on the proceedings of the royal commission, and is not in order in doing so.

Mr WARD:

– I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your comment, because it supports my concluding argument, which is about clause 24 (e) of the bill. That provision is the real danger in this measure, and is the basis of one of the great criticisms that the Labour party makes of it. Clause 24 (e) provides that a person shall not, by writing or speech, use words calculated to bring the commission or a member of the commission into disrepute.

Mr Gullett:

– I thought that the honorable member would like that provision.

Mr WARD:

– I remind the honorable member for Henty that the clause does not state that the penalty shall be imposed only if a person falsely writes about, or by speech reflects upon, the commission. Criticism of the commission could be truthful, and based on fact. I have in mind criticism of some of the things that I have mentioned, such as the action taken to suppress the names of certain persons mentioned in documents before the commission whilst the names of others referred to have been published. Even criticism of that type will not be permitted when this legislation becomes law. It is most important for the Australian public to be informed of the position. No member of the Labour party believes that a member of the commission or a citizen should be falsely defamed, or that a person should be permitted to make defamatory statements which can be proved false. But what is to become of proper, truthful criticism based on fact? Surely, every honorable member believes in the freedom to offer legitimate and honest criticism when he believes that it is warranted. What is to become of our vaunted democracy if that is not the principle upon which we act on all occasions?

I remind Government supporters that the royal commission already has power to enable it to deal with persons who falsely defame members of the judiciary, or any citizen. The purpose of the Government, in introducing this bill, is to stifle any criticism that may be offered of its own actions in the matter or of the conduct of the commission. Suppose I wish, when this legislation becomes law, to say outside this House that, in my opinion, the commission is wrong because it does not publish the names of every person who is mentioned in any document placed before it, or reveal the whole facts. If I make such’ a statement, I shall be liable to a penalty under the act. If I criticize the method adopted by the Prime Minister in the selection of the judges to sit on the royal commission, even though I do not reflect upon the commission, I shall be liable to a penalty. Members of the Labour party do not wish to say anything untrue or unfair about the commission, but we certainly do not desire to restrict our opportunities, if the necessity arises, to criticize some action that we regard as improper, or against the best interests of the Australian community. I hope that the majority of honorable members will take a second look at this legislation, and will make it clear that its purpose is not to stifle honest and truthful criticism of the commission.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) lost no time in justifying the name that T apply to him which is, “the Lockwood of the Labour party “. He made a number of false statements, and, in addition, be quoted a number of falsities circulating under the name of Lockwood. I do not know whether that is evidence of connivance, or of the honorable member’s state of mind.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must confine his remarks to a personal explanation.

Mr Wentworth:

– The story about Dobson and myself, which the honorable member for East Sydney has told, is entirely untrue, and has been denied previously in this House. I think that the honorable member knows it to be untrue. The honorable gentleman also said that I had framed, or attempted to frame, Dr. Burton. I should think that nothing could possibly convict Dr. Burton more than his own published writings and statements. They are quite sufficient. Reference was also made to Katharine Susannah Pritchard. She is a foundation member of the Communist party, and has always remained so, and so was named by me. I did mention, as I am entitled to do, that she used two names, her maiden name and her married name. I shall not develop that matter, because it is before a court, but

I think that, I should set out the facts in this House, because the honorable member for East Sydney has mentioned them. I made a mistake about Kylie Tennant, and having made the mistake, I did what, so far as I know, the honorable member for East Sydney has never done in similar circumstances. I made a full retraction, and took steps to waive my parliamentary privilege in regard to the matter. A mistake was made, and having made it, I acted as generously and as fully as lay within my power to do. I have not descended to personalities in this House. Every time I have mentioned a matter about an honorable member opposite, it has been in a political connotation, and has been a proper matter for consideration in this chamber. One, at least, of those falsities which have emanated from the honorable member for East Sydney, has been used by him previously in this House, and has been denied by mo. I think that there is nothing more that I can, or need, say.

Mr ANTHONY:
PostmasterGeneral · Richmond · CP

– I do not intend, in my speech, to follow the lines taken by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), other than to comment that it was remarkable that he rose to speak, when the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) resumed his seat, with fully prepared notes about him. Those notes contained charges and smears which the honorable member for Mackellar has since refuted. I admire the knowledge, sincerity and courage of the honorable member for Mackellar in placing matters before this House, as he has to-day, relative to the methods, techniques and machinations of international communism.

This bill should not produce a great deal of debate. When the Royal Commission Bill 1954 was introduced a few days before the dissolution of the last Parliament, it was passed, without delay, on the voices. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), on behalf of the Labour party, gave the bill his full support. But the Labour party, whenever it says that it will give a bill its full support, makes mental reservations, and withdraws that support in the course of time when propaganda has been able to influence public opinion in the way that certain individuals in the Labour party wish.

The newspapers report that the honorable member for East Sydney made a similar speech to caucus yesterday, and that caucus rejected his contentions and announced publicly that the Labour party would support the bill, but would allow each honorable member to express hisviews on it as he thought fit. It is evident that the majority of the members of the Labour party support the bill, and have no time for espionage activities in Australia. We expect such an attitude from every loyal Australian. The purpose of this bill is to enable the royal commission to probe certain charges to their depths, and to elicit the facts, irrespective of who may be hurt in the process, whether it be the Leader of the Opposition, or a person favorable to the political parties represented on this side of the chamber. The honorable member for East Sydney has denied that he wishes to smear the commission, or say anything derogatory about the judges, but he is attempting to create the right atmosphere for his purposes. If the report of the royal commission is adverse, the groundwork will already have been laid for a destructive smear campaign against the commissioners. He has directed attention to the three judges, all of whom occupy a high place in the estimation of the people of Australia. Indeed, the honorable gentleman should be grateful to Mr. Justice Ligertwood, of South Australia, the royal commissioner who inquired into a certain New Guinea timber matter. His Honour gave the honorable member for East Sydney a clean bill of health. If any one should appreciate the virtues, character, honesty and integrity of that member of the commission, it should be the honorable member for East Sydney. Yet he has laid the groundwork for an attack, in the future, upon members of the commission.

The bill is designed to enable the commission to deal with witnesses who refuse to answer questions. I. recall that one witness, who refused to answer questions, changed his mind the following day. We have no evidence of the reason why he changed his mind, but we may well guess that he was so advised by a high authority,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Post.masterGeneral is now dealing with the proceedings before the royal commission. He is not in order in doing so.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I shall not continue along those lines. This bill will confer on the royal commission power to compel a person, who has been summoned to appear before it, to give evidence on matters relating to the inquiry. We, as a democratic people, will no longer be humiliated by persons who take advantage of the constitutional processes of this nation, whose Constitution many of them are pledged to destroy. All the hubbub that has been raised by the honorable member for East Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition in his long speech this morning-

Mr Duthie:

– His speech occupied only ten minutes.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The Leader of the Opposition had the full time to which he was entitled, and also an extension of time. He attempted to evade the Standing Orders in order to obtain unlimited time. The motion submitted by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) was for that purpose. If that honorable gentleman’s intention had been endorsed, the Leader of the Opposition could have taken up the whole of the time for this debate, if he had wished, with an interminable speech, in order to blanket out speeches by honorable members on this side of the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition, when he appeared before the Privy Council in the Banking case .made an interminable speech and two judges collapsed before a decision was given.

I have stated that this bill does not call for much debate or comment. This is a matter of rooting out a nest of traitors, to which reference was made in this House some time ago, and rooting out persons who would give information to a potential enemy for the purpose of destroying democracy and, in the process, this nation. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more than that. The commission must be given unlimited powers in relation to the matters that it has been called upon to investigate, and the people of Australia will demand that those powers be given to it. I am sure that the bill has the full approval, not only of every honorable member on the Government side of the House, but also of a majority of the members of the Labour party. There are certain notable exceptions on the Opposition side of the House, and we have seen them in action to-day. We always expect such conduct from that quarter. The bill will go through regardless of the opposition of those honorable gentlemen, and I trust that it will do so speedily.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– I had the advantage of hearing what was said by one honorable member about the way in which the Royal Commission on Espionage was constituted and about the personnel of the commission. Reference was made to Mr. Justice Townley, and as the reference was, if not designed, at any rate calculated, to do some injury to that learned judge, I think I should tell the committee exactly how the membership of the royal commission came to be established. When the Government of the Commonwealth promotes the Governor-General to appoint a royal commission, it accepts, of course, its own responsibility. No government risks some other government to appoint a royal commission. If we wish to appoint a royal commission to inquire into a matter of great national importance, we naturally accept the entire responsibility for the selection of the royal commissioner or royal commissioners. That has been the practice of governments in my experience, which, no doubt, is limited - it goes back only for a quarter of a century - and certainly it is a practice from which I would not dream of departing. Since the charges that I have mentioned have been made, it is now necessary for me to tell the committee and the country quite plainly what the facts are.

When it was decided to appoint a royal commission, I first of all had discussions with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. The High Court of Australia has maintained a steady practice over the 50 years of its life, broken only in one instance in the case of a private war-time investigation, that it will not make its judges available for royal commissions for a variety of reasons, one of which has been well illustrated in this case. That reason is that, if legal proceedings by way of appeal or challenge are instituted, they will go to the High Court, and the High Court ought not to be the body dealing with legal points arising from the inquiry and, at the same time, through one or several of its members, the body investigating the facts. Very well. I accepted that situation. I then conferred with the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), and we discussed what would be a balanced and representative royal commission to make this investigation. We decided that it would be a good thing to have a commission consisting of Mr. Justice Owen, a very distinguished judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, as chairman; Mr. Justice Philp, of the Supreme Court of Queensland ; and Mr. Justice O’Bryan, of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

I then proceeded to carry out what I believed to be the strict and proper procedure in such matters, because I pay some attention to proper procedure in dealing with these things. First of all, I rang the Premier of New South Wales. He was out of Sydney for a few hours, and I asked the secretary of his department to go personally to where he was and tell him what I wanted. My message was this : “ I should like to be allowed to ask Mr. Justice Owen to be the chairman of this very important royal commission. If you, Mr. Premier, are agreeable to my making this approach, I will then, of course, speak to the Chief Justice of New South Wales, and then, if he is agreeable and it can be done consistently with the work of the court, I will approach the judge “. The Premier of New South Wales agreed quite promptly that this should be done. I then rang the Chief Justice of New South Wales, and I secured his permission to speak to Mr. Justice Owen. I then rang Mr. Justice Owen and asked him whether he would be agreeable, the Chief Justice and the Premier both having agreed, to accept the appointment. He said he would like to think it over for an hour or two. Naturally, these requests are not to be answered offhand. That evening, according to my recollection, I heard from bini that he would he agreeable to act.

I then rang the Premier of Victor: :i. I am just saying these things so that honorable members may see that everything was done very strictly according to the rules, or at any rate what I believe to be the rules. I rang my friend, Mr. Cain, the Premier of Victoria, and told him that I had in mind the learned judge to whom I have referred but that, of course, I would not approach the Chief Justice until I had Mr. Cain’s approval. That was on about the Friday of that week, Mr. Cain said to me, “Well, this is a matter that I should, need to discuss with my Cabinet, and I do not have a Cabinet meeting until Monday. I shall let you know as soon as I can “. I rang Mr. Cain again on Monday afternoon and asked him what the position was. He, being a personal friend of mine, as the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) knows-

Mr Pollard:

– Rut no more.

Mr MENZIES:

– But no more? Nothing could be more than that. What a marvellous thing to be an old friend of mine, like the honorable member for Lalor ! Mr. Cain said, “ You appear to be in a bit of a hurry”, and I replied, “Well, I am, because time is marching on. I shall be glad if you will let me know as soon as you can “. He, in the meantime, had communicated with the Chief Justice, who indicated to him, on behalf of the Victorian Supreme Court judges, that none of them would he willing to serve on a royal commission, for reasons which they have stated and with which honorable members are familiar, so that no such judge would be available. That eliminated the prospect of getting the Victorian Supreme Court judge whom we had chosen.

In the meantime, before that answer was obtained on the Monday, I had rung the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Gair.

Perhaps it is unfortunate, but it is quite true that I did not name the actual Supreme Court judge for whom I wished to ask. What I said was: “I want your permission to approach one of your Supreme Court judges to serve on this royal commission “. Mr. Gair replied, “ Well, I do not want to answer that offhand ; could you give me a day to think about it “, and I said, “ Certainly He rang me a day later. In the meantime, no doubt, he had completely misunderstood what I had said. He said to me, “I can let you have a judge. I. have spoken to the Chief Justice, and he has nominated Mr. Justice Townley “.

Mr Pollard:

– Why was not that good enough for you?

Mr MENZIES:

– Wait a moment. Do not be any more impetuous than you usually are. I said to Mr. Gair, “Well, that is very kind of you, but the judge that we had’ in mind, because we are collecting a balanced royal commission, was Mr. Justice Philp “, and the Premier then said, “ That is a little embarrassing “. I remark at this stage that I may have met Mr. Justice Townley, but nothing more than that, and that everything I have heard about him is good. The Premier remarked, as I have said, “ That is a little embarrassing”. I said, “It is, too, but if I speak to the Chief Justice and then speak to Mr. Justice Townley and explain how this contretemps has arisen, will that be agreeable to you and may I then approach Mr. Justice Philp ? “ Mr. Gair said, “ Yes “. Honorable members will observe that the task of assembling a royal commission is a long job.

I then rang the Chief Justice, whom I have the great honour and pleasure of knowing, and told him how the situation had arisen, and he said, “It may be a little embarrassing, because Mr. Justice Townley has been approached “. “ Well “, I said, “I will ring him up and talk to him about that”, and the Chief Justice said, “Right. I agree”. I then rang Mr. Justice Townley, who was on circuit in one of the western towns of Queensland, and told him what had happened. I must say that he said at once, “ I understand; that is quite all right. I do not suffer from any embarrassment “.

Mr Brand:

– Nobody in Queensland worries about it.

Mr MENZIES:

– But I come now to the nub of the story. When Mr. Justice Townley said, “I understand; that is quite all right”, I said, “I am terribly sorry that you should have any embarrassment about this matter “. He replied, “ There is no embarrassment to me because– “.

Mr.Clyde Cameron. - What else could he say?

Mr MENZIES:

– If the honorable member will listen, he will learn. Mr. Justice Townley said, “ There is no embarrassment to me because there has been no public statement about my having been approached. Therefore, nobody knows except myself. So, Mr. Prime Minister, you need not feel embarrassed at all “. I then approached Mr. Justice Philp, whom we had originally chosen. It is just puerile to say that there is some insult to any judge who is not approached or chosen, because to do so is to say that, by selecting three Supreme Court judges, we offer an insult to about 30 Supreme Court judges whom we have not approached. That is so puerile that it does not bear examination. Mr. Justice Philp agreed to accept the appointment, and the commission was set up.

I admit that I was shocked a few days later to learn that the Premier of Queensland had thought fit to embarrass Mr. Justice Townley by making public the fact that he had been chosen by the Chief Justice but not by the Australian Government. I thought that was a shocking thing to do, but I must confess that, shocked as I was by that, I was more severely shocked to hear the fact proclaimed in this House. Was it an attack on Mr. Justic Philp? Oh no! Quite unctuously, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) said, “ I am not criticizing any member of the royal commission “ ! Well, if it was not an attack on Mr. Justice Philp, it was a deliberate attempt to make political capital out of what had occurred, with reckless indifference to the decent feelings of a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Mr. Justice

Townley, who merely happened not to be the Supreme Court judge for whom we had decided to ask for the purposes of this commission.

Finally, as I have told honorable members, when the Victorian Government indicated on the following day that no Supreme Court judge of that State would be available, we approached the Premier of South Australia, the Chief Justice of South Australia and eventually Mr. Justice Ligertwood, who very generously accepted an appointment to the commission. I have merely stated these facts, which are beyond any controversy, in order to show what a lot of strange things can be said by people about a royal commission of which, in fact, theyare terrified.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– I want to say only a few words about this matter that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has mentioned. What the right honorable gentleman has said only proves that the statements by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), which were based on the remarks of the Premier of Queensland, were substantially correct and that the royal commission was personally selected by the Prime Minister. In fact, that comment was made by the Prime Minister, and I think the statements of the honorable member for East Sydney have now been proved to be completely true.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 249

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Debate resumed from the 11th August (vide page 205), on motion by Mr. Menzies) -

That the following paper be printed: -

Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 5th August, 1954

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The debate so far has shown that a considerable degree of unanimity exists between the Government side of the House and the Opposition in relation to foreign policy. However, whilst not much ground for disputation has been apparent so far, it seems that there has been no clear statement from the Government about possible future trends in this country’s position internationally. On Tuesday night the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) began his contribution to the debate by suggesting that this was not the time for party politics or for amateur strategy on the part of people who had never learned to stand to attention. I am sorry that such a note has been introduced into the debate, because if we are to believe the statements made by the Minister later in his speech, and by other honorable members opposite, there exists a real and present danger to Australia. That being the position, this is not the time to suggest that only those who have stood to attention know anything about the national requirements of Australia. We agree with the Minister for the Interior that we are facing a national crisis. It is, in fact, possibly a world crisis, because we all accept, as a fact, the division of the world to-day into two clearly denned political spheres. One of them is the Western bloc consisting of the democracies. The second sphere is the Communist bloc, or, as it might be called in cricketing terms, “ The Others “.

Australia is perhaps in a less favorable position in relation to this world political division than are most of the other democracies, because of the smallness of our population compared with the immensity of the land that we occupy. Because of our geographic isolation from the rest of the world we have to look to ourselves mainly for our defence. The Minister for the Interior mentioned the tide that had to be taken at the flood in 1914. He mentioned that on the 4th August last this National Parliament had another flood to face, which, as he put it, was a “ creeping, dangerous, insidious flood”. He was referring to the flood of communism throughout the world. The great difference between the 1914 flood and the 1954 flood is that the 1914 flood was of a military character alone, whereas the flood in 1954 is mainly nonmilitary. Had it not been for the prompt action of the United Nations, on a military level, the Korean war would have been settled very quickly in favour of the Communist aggressors. We do not agree that an approach to the international problem to-day as it effects Australia necessarily involves the sending of Australian troops to light abroad. That is one of the factors that must be fully discussed in this Parliament before any action is taken in that direction. I know that it can be said that there must be two ways of meeting this insidious Communist flood that stands in the way of freedom and democracy. In seeking the alternative approaches let us not think with the minds of 1914. Let us not consider merely the military approach, and think that our problem can be settled in the same way as the problem was settled in 1914-18, by a resort to arms’; because there is a. groat deal of difference of opinion about what is the best approach. We think, of course, in terms of the great United States of America coming to our aid as it did on the last occasion. We think in terms of that great nation being perhaps the bulwark of our defence in the Pacific.

We listened carefully and with interest to the remarks of the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) last night about the obligations of Great Britain. Surely nobody in this House, at this time, is not perturbed by the realization that to-day we have no naval force at Singapore, to halt an aggressor from the north. Whilst Singapore may not have been all that we desired during the early days of the war with Japan at least there was a British naval force there then, but there is none there to-day. It is for that reason that we must be disturbed to find some division of thought even in the Republican party, which now holds office in the United States of America, regarding the policy to be followed by that country. I am not unmindful of the fact that a former president of the United States of America, Mr. Herbert Hoover, only this week criticized what was done during the period which marked what he described as “ the spread of communism over the earth “. He suggested that the United States of America could be charged with the responsibility for the action taken in 1933 that was the forerunner of the “ opening of the headgates to a torrent of traitors “. If we view those remarks along with present happenings in America we cannot help but recall the lack of thought in the approach of the honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Lucock) to international affairs. I was astounded by his attemptto imply that every man in Australia who was not prepared to don a uniform and shoulder a rifle was deserving of the greatest criticism. That is not the answer to our problem. This week, the President of the United. States of A m erica said frankly that in his opinion a preventive war was unthinkable. Let us realize what that statement means. The President, with his normally very sound .”judgment, said that a preventive war is impossible to-day. He asked how there could be a preventive war if one of its features was several cities lying in ruins. We should pause to examine the implications of that statement. Surely nobody in this chamber, or in this city, failed to appreciate what happened when the United States of America carried out its last atomic test. Were the missile that was exploded on that occasion used on the City of Sydney it would not only destroy that city but would also virtually destroy all life as far south as Canberra, as far west as Orange, and as far north as Newcastle.

I think it is to the credit of the United Nations that the great American democracy, despite the present world position, has decided to continue with research into the use of atomic energy for productive purposes, even if it cannot gain agreement with Russia on atomic weapons. The fact that the United States of America has taken such action spells some hope for the world. I believe that if free thinking people in this atomic age could convert atomic energy to productive purposes, Asia could be fed in a way that would destroy Asian communism in a few years. It is on that point that I wish to dwell. I do not think for a. moment that the South-East Asia Treaty Organization can be of value to Australia if it is merely to be on a military level. It has been reported that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) proposes to attend the first meeting of Seato. I hope and pray that if he does so the deliberations of the organization shall be directed towards obtaining a solution of our problems by peace rather than by war. I believe that because of our geographical position and our small population, we must strive with all our might to preserve ourselves by developing our internal resources. When the South-East. Asia Treaty Organization comes into being, and we all believe that there should be some regional organization for defence, that organization should take notice that Australia has vast uranium deposits, and that this country can become one of the focal points of a world defensive organization. Of course, it can only do so if it is properly developed.

I urge the Government to take into account that with our uranium resources, atomic energy should play an enormous part in the development of this country, and its emergence as a bastion of defence. We have the uranium, and I believe that with American and British aid we can develop our uranium in this country and become probably the ‘greatest energyproducing country of the world. I do not believe that the present time is a time to rattle the sabre and click the jackboots. I quite realize that we shall perhaps never reach a state when we can accept the word of the Communists in any agreement, but the Government seems to think in terms of the very thing that the President of the United States of America says is unthinkable, that is, a preventive war. A war to stop wars is not the answer to the problems of the world, and certainly not to those of Australia. The future welfare of the world will depend upon the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes rather than for war. Therefore. I firmly believe that if we develop our uranium resources with the greatest expedition we shall go forward to our destiny in peace.

I believe that if this matter is put up to the American people, they will endorse the viewpoint of Australia and help us to become a great bulwark of peace in the world. We have the uranium, and America and Great Britain have the know-how. With the aid of America and Great Britain, let us develop our uranium deposits in this country, rather than send the uranium abroad. I do not believe that alone we have any chance of defending Australia for the next two decades, however fast our population may increase.

If war should ‘break out again, I believe that the first blow will fall in Europe, and in the general turmoil we may be forgotten. Development is the keynote of our future, and our great uranium deposits should make rapid development possible. Indeed, we shall be able to give a lead to the world if we secure the help of America and Great Britain. “When the South-East Asia Treaty Organization comes into being that viewpoint should be put before it. Uranium will develop this country as a great and strong nation, while war may destroy it.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- It is hard to over-estimate the importance of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) regarding the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, and I appreciate the opportunity to put my case briefly with ragard to that statement. I support it absolutely, and I believe that all Australians should support the pledge by the Prime Minister that our men, aircraft, ships and equipment will be put together with those of our allies in this treaty organization that will be set up to ensure the peace of the world and stop the march of communism. The Prime Minister detailed the actions of the Communists throughout the world, and showed that through their cold-war tactics, and by taking over nations one at a time, they have now reached the stage when they are threatening Australia. Honorable members already have some knowledge of the activities of the Communists, but the Prime Minister’s statement brought it home to the people that the Parliament of the Commonwealth is concerned about this matter. I had long believed that there was no way of stopping the Communists except by strength of arms. The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E, James Harrison) said that Australia could become a great bulwark of peace, and that war with the Communists or anybody else was unthinkable. If the Communists continue to push forward, what are we going to do if we do not support a plan such as that put forward by the Prime Minister? If we do not offer such support, everything will be lost ; because even if the enemy came to our very gates apparently the honorable mem ber for Blaxland would do nothing but talk about peace and negotiations.

I listened with interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) on this matter. He agreed that we should join a treaty organization and he then put in a few ifs and buts. He said that if the matter had been taken to the United Nations, perhaps everything would have been settled satisfactorily. However, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) pointed out that because of the abuse of the veto power by Russia, any action by the United Nations would be futile. The Leader of the Opposition then said that the United Nations had been successful in Korea, and that after peaceful negotiations had failed to show results, words were backed with armed force. I was astonished when he spoke of armed force, because I have always found that the Leader of the Opposition is quite capable of negotiating, but when it comes to backing up the result of negotiations he is found wanting. When the Government needed men for the Korean force, not one honorable member of the Opposition stated that Australians should join that force. After negotiations have been concluded the Labour party and its leader are also finished. If the Opposition were in office at present, I do not believe that it would put a force in the field at all. Therefore, it is quite wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to try to claim some credit for the United Nations in regard to the Korean force that left this country to support the decisions of that organization.

After the 1951 general election I stated that the Leader of the Opposition had not supported the recruiting campaign for troops for Korea. Then the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua) said that he had done so and I said “Yes, but you won’t do it again “. In fact he has not done so since, nor have any members of the Labour party. While peaceful negotiations are proceeding the Opposition is the champion of the United Nations, but when there is a show of aims they do not speak one word. Eastern nations are very respectful to a show of arms. You have to show yourself strong in order to get their support. Until Singapore fell, millions- of people in

Singapore and Malaya were behind the Allies. Australian flags and Union Jacks waved everywhere. But when the Allied prisoners were being taken from Singapore to Changi, out of nearly every window fluttered a Japanese flag. Three and a half years later, when the Allies were again on top and prisoners were being released and brought down to ships, British flags were flying ‘out of all the windows once again. I know that occurred, because I saw it. The moment that a nation shows weakness the Asian nations desert it. We can feed them or do anything else for them, but we must show strength. If we show strength we shall win many Asian people to us, but unless we show that we are prepared to stop the march of communism, we shall continue to retreat.

I deplore smear campaigns in this Parliament from whichever side of the House they may come. To-day, there have been one or two incidents that have brought no credit on the Parliament. If T speak against the Labour party’s policy E mean nothing personal in regard to the honorable member who put forward the sentiments that. I attack. I have been a member of the Parliament for about eight and a’ half years, and I do not think that I have attacked anybody personally or disparagingly in that time, although I have attacked the policies to which I am opposed on many occasions. The honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa) said that he believed that the worst peace was better than the best war. I believe that that is a dreadful statement, because the worst peace can only mean slavery. Our men have fought in- two world wars for freedom. They have been able to keep the fighting out of Australia, and that is why we now want to send forces overseas to combat communism. Let no one misunderstand me. The Prime Minister said that the forces that would back up the opinions of the free nations would not operate until all peaceful negotiations had failed completely. We cannot continue peaceful negotiations too long, otherwise the Communists will penetrate ever closer to our shores. If that should occur, what must be the next move?

America is now more active in SouthEast Asia, and intends to send more aircraft and troops to that area. We must act now. The Opposition has asked, “ Does this mean conscription ? “ If this country must be protected, everybody must ‘fight for it. When the Japanese or the Communists have poured into other countries everybody has had to fight. Warfare is different from what it was years ago. When I suggest that all of Australia’s man-power must be utilized, I do not mean that the Government is thinking about the introduction of conscription; probably nothing is further from the mind of the Prime Minister. But Australia cannot approach this threat in a half-hearted manner. The Government must have the support of the men of Australia and it must have strong forces to fight for our liberty.

I have heard the statements of honorable members and of persons outside the House twisted into meaning something that they were not intended to mean. In particular, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) twisted the speech that Abraham Lincoln made at Gettysburg. Surely that speech is so well known to honorable members that the honorable member for Melbourne cannot get away with his rendering of it. He stated that the world would never have peace until, as Abraham Lincoln said, we had government of the people by the people for the people, but he took the words out of their context. The speech to which he referred was delivered at Gettysburg, where there had been a great battle for the preservation of peace. Lincoln had said that America could not long endure with its population half slave and half free. The American army had forced the acceptance of the principle of government of the people by the people. On the Gettysburg battlefield, when the dead were being honoured, Lincoln used, amongst others, the following words: -

. that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Did not the honoured dead of Australia, in two world wars, give their last full measure of devotion? We must highly resolve that they shall not have died in vain and that the freedom and democracy for which they fought, which means government of the people by the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The idea that a nation should not go to war in order to preserve peace and freedom is false. Surely any honorable member opposite who says so has had no experience in these matters. Australia may have to go to war in order to preserve peace and honour. Throughout the centuries, the countries that have not been prepared to fight for peace have sunk into degradation and slavery. Surely the British people in Australia will not permit a similar fate to be imposed upon them. It has been stated that the United Kingdom has to protect itself and that we may be neglected. The United Kingdom must protect itself, but do honorable members not realize that, if the Communist march in South-East Asia has to be stopped by force, there may be a world war? Do they not realize also that, in that event, the United Kingdom would be keeping Russia very busy on the other side of the world? If the United Kingdom could not send us the forces that we wanted, it certainly would be engaging a Russian force of the same size that otherwise would be engaged in SouthEast Asia. It has been stated that Australians may be used as shock troops. They may be used as shock troops sometimes. It has been stated also that Australia was saved because the Allies won the Coral Sea battle, but there has been no suggestion that Australians had been used as shock troops at that time. Yet any thinking person knows that, during World War II., the invasion of Australia was prevented not by the winning of the Coral Sea battle, but because the Eighth Australian Division delayed the Japanese on the Malayan peninsula for five or six weeks. If Japan had not concentrated its efforts on the Malayan peninsula and if the Eighth Australian Division had not delayed those forces, there would not have been a Coral Sea battle, because the American naval forces would not have had sufficient time in which to reach that area. The Japanese would have been in Australia if they had chosen to come here rather than go to Malaya. Shock troops were used in Malaya on that occasion, and it may be necessary to use them again. The Government has been asked where it will get the men. Surely this country has not become so degraded that, if it were necessary to defend its liberty, our men would not rally to the flag. I still have faith in the manhood of this country and I believe that, if a real threat existed, again they would not be found wanting. Someone may say, “ The honorable member for Mallee is just a warmonger. He wants these things to take place”. Nothing could be further from the truth. T believe in peaceful negotiation, but I do not believe in taking it to a dangerous extremity.

I should like the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to take immediate actio it. I should like the Australian Government and the governments of America and the United Kingdom and other nations that join the proposed organization to issue an ultimatum to the rest of the world and state clearly where we stand. If that is not done, soon there will be further Communist aggression. If we adopted the suggestions of honorable members opposite, the Communists would continue to creep down on us. We may send as much food as possible to Asian countries, but we must remember that to send wheat to the people of Malaya and other Asian countries, when they do not know how to use it, would not achieve any worthwhile result. Those people want rice. . Honorable members should not forget that, when we are fighting battles overseas, we are not fighting in our own land. We do not wish the hardships that have been inflicted on the people of countries that have been overrun to be inflicted upon our men and women. Surely it is not asking too much of Australians to lend their full support to the Prime Minister’s statement. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua) is now in the chamber. I had intended to ask the honorable member whether he had supported any campaigns for the recruitment of national service trainees after he was elected to the Parliament. I did not wish to ask that question when he was not present. Let honorable members support the campaign for national service training. Not one honorable member opposite has approved of the national service training scheme. I invite any member of the Opposition to indicate the degree to which he has helped to prepare Australia for war. The Opposition does not believe in compulsory military training. The honorable member for Ballarat shakes his head. Perhaps he is not opposed to such training, but he is overwhelmed by the other members of his party. If the Opposition approves of compulsory military training, I invite the next Opposition member who speaks to say, “We support the training of our young men so that in this country we may maintain the freedom which in the past has cost us the sacrifice of so many of our loved ones “.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- It is obvious that honorable members on both sides of the House support the establishment of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. It is true that the Government bas announced only the principle of the establishment of such an organization and that the details will be worked out at a later stage. I do not propose to refer to past events, but I do propose to refer to the future position of this country. The discussions that have taken place since the fall of Indo-China have been directed almost exclusively to the position in Asia and very rarely to Australia’s military and political security. The relationship of Australia to South-East Asia is not the same as it was before 1945. We are only 8,500,000 people, and we are virtually a white nation in a coloured sea. Three principal factors governed the maintenance of European civilization in Australia. The first of those factors was the preponderance of European military power in Southern Asia and in South-East Asia, which served as a bastion between Asia, which was overpopulated, and Australia, which was under-populated. The second factor was that there were British armies in India, Burma and Malaya; there was a British fleet at Singapore, a Dutch army in the Dutch East Indies, a French army in

Indo-China, and an American force in the Philippines. The position now is quite different.

The third factor that must now enter into our calculations was that no heavy industries capable of maintaining a modern army and of building a modern fleet or air force existed on the mainland of Asia prior to Japan’s entry into Manchuria in the early 1930’s. Following that event the position changed greatly. The Manchurian city of Harbin was developed as a vast centre of heavy industry capable of maintaining modern fighting forces. When Japan lost control of Manchuria at the conclusion of the war in 1945, the heavy industries that it had developed in Manchuria were taken over by the Russians, who have continued to extend them. Manchurian industrial power is now capable of fitting out and maintaining a large fleet of warships. It is suggested that Communist China has no battle fleet capable of seriously challenging Australia’s independence, but at the Siberian port of Vladivostock, Russia maintains at least 200 ocean-going submarines. This is a formidable force. In 1915, Japan’s potential as an aggressor was less than that of Communist China to-day, and I remind the House that in the brief span of 25 years - a very short time in the life of a nation - the J Japanese were able to build up a fleet of warships that in 1941 successfully attacked the American port of Pearl Harbour, in the Hawaiian Islands. Units of this fleet came very close to Australian shores. China has already developed considerable heavy industry, for which it is able to provide all types of raw materials. The population of China is approximately four times that of Japan, and, in addition, Chinese man-power is supported by Russian “know-how”. This is a dangerous factor that has developed in SouthEast Asia since 1945.

The military vacuum that was left by the disbandment of European forces in South-East Asia has been largely filled by the development of Communist forces in various countries, and notably in China. The Communists have initiated this development principally by seizing control of nationalist movements. This pattern was followed in China, though we heard at the time that Mao-Tse-Tung had withdrawn and re-organized his forces. The policy of the Chinese Communist party is to unify the Chinese people and to impose upon them its own policy and doctrines. Since the Communists achieved dominance of China we have witnessed the intrusion of Chinese forces in Korea and Tibet and an upsurge of Communist activity in Burma. Last, but not least, the war that raged between the French forces and a Communistdominated nationalist movement in French Indo-China for seven years has been concluded favorably to the Communists. On the 5th May of this year, President Eisenhower of the United States of America announced to the world that, in an effort to stem the southward movement of the Red forces in SouthEast Asia, he proposed, through his emissaries at Geneva, to ask the other interested nations to join with the United States of America in the formation of a South-East Asia Treaty Organization along the lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We, on this side of the House, support the proposal because we realize that a threat to Australian security in SouthEast Asia is ever present. The dangers that existed in 1945 have been increased by the defeat of the forces opposed to communism in Indo-China.

Australia would be an attractive prize for any world power. Its economic importance is undoubted. At present Japan imports annually between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 worth of Australian wool. This fact demonstrates the interest that Asiatic nations take in our staple product, and it is reasonable to suppose that they are equally as much interested in other raw materials that are available here. Uranium, particularly, is of prime importance in the world to-day. I recall that on previous occasions I have addressed the House about the attractiveness that Australia’s uranium deposits lend it in the eyes of other nations. We are about to enter the uranium, or atomic, age. Every month, scientific journals reveal further progress towards the atomic age. Extensive deposits of uranium have been discovered at Rum

Jungle, in the Northern Territory, and indications of deposits near Mount Isa have been revealed. I am confident that if the Minister for Air (Mr. Townley) will make available a DC3 aircraft fitted with a scintillometer for use in the search for uranium, further deposits of this valuable mineral will be discovered in North Queensland. Mount Isa is situated on the Cloncurry mineral field, in which every known mineral has been discovered. The ChillagoeEtheridgeEinasleigh field is another extensive mineral belt in North Queensland in which every known mineral except uranium has been found, and it is natural to assume that deposits of uranium also will be found there.

Australia faces a challenge from Asia, which has largely rallied round communism. This country is an important base for the democracies in their fight against the progress of international communism towards world domination, and the Communists will do their utmost to put such an important base for defensive operations completely out of action. We all are aware that during World War II. Australia became, as it were, the springboard for. the American forces in their drive to roll back the Japanese armies. In the years that lie ahead, the Communist powers, which apparently are bent on world domination, will be ever conscious of the vital role that Australia played in World War II. - a role that this country will inevitably play again in any contest with communism. Thepolicy of the Communist nations indicates that they are aware that their principal opponent is the United States of America, and that the’ subjugation of theallies of the United States of America in the Pacific will force the Americans back to Pearl Harbour. Let us not be pessimistic. I am neither a warmonger nor a jingoist, but I am highly conscious of recent developments in that part of theworld which is known as the Far East, and of the disappearance of the protectiveumbrella of European forces that formerly existed to the north of Australa.

Only four years ago the Prime Minister(Mr. Menzies) informed this Parliament that Australia had three years and nolonger’ in which to put its defences in. order, and expenditure on defence now amounts to £200,000,000 a year. The honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Bruce) endeavoured yesterday, in this debate, to place before the House the thoughts and expressions of opinion of the people of north Queensland. He referred to their criticism of a statement that was made by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. McMahon), who was at the time Minister for the Navy, when he visited north Queensland prior to the general election campaign. The residents of north Australia are aware of the great potential of the Bum Jungle and other uranium fields and of the likelihood that oil will be discovered in payable quantities in the north of Western Australia. They are acutely aware, also, that the northern parts of Australia are sparsely populated, and they believe that the Government’s im migration policy has failed. Those whose job it is to advise governments have told us forcefully that Australia must increase its population to 25,000,000 as quickly as possible. Great developmental works that would be of inestimable value for defence are urgently required in the northern parts of the continent. In the face of developments in the Far East, and particularly of the resurgence of China under Communist control, what is the Government doing in northern Australia to assure our effective defence?

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– - Nothing!

Mr RIORDAN:

– As the honorable member has pointed out, the answer is, “Nothing”. The residents of northern Australia have a just complaint about the manner in which they have been neglected. It is all very well for the Government to talk about its expenditure of £200,000,000 annually on defence. Most of this sum is absorbed in the construction of palatial buildings and munitions factories at disproportionately high costs. The citizens of northern Australia are acutely aware of their geographical position and of the attractiveness of the rich northern areas to other nations, and they demand to know what action the Government proposes to take to establish permanent defences in the north. Australia can make its most worthwhile contribu tion to the proposed South-East Asia Treaty Organization by establishing permanent defences in the northern portion of this continent.

Mr DOWNER:
Angas

.- This debate has lasted for some days. It is pleasing to note, from the view-point of the outside world, the general agreement among honorable members on both sides of the House on the basic thesis that the Prime Minister (Mi’. Menzies) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) put forward.’ Most honorable members, quite obviously, support the Prime Minister’s historic statement. He gave a realistic and factual appreciation of events in South-East Asia, and I have not heard any honorable member seriously quarrel with his forebodings for the future and his plan to meet it. I listened to the strictures that the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) made on the Government’s defence policy. Of course, one could pick flaws in any administration’s defence policy, but the fact remains that this country is more prepared than it has ever been before in a time of peace. If criticism of Australia’s defences must be made, it is singular that it should come from members of the Opposition, because when the Government sought to recruit support for its enlistment campaign for the army not so long ago it was met with sneers and a. blank refusal from honorable members opposite. Yet, those honorable members now try to castigate the Government for allegedly leaving this country in a state of unpreparedness. Never before has this House, on so great an issue, been treated to such hypocrisy.

If honorable members will bear with me for a few moments, T shall return to the point at which this debate was commenced and give a brief review of the very parlous situation in which we now find ourselves. The only satisfaction that any of us can derive from the truce in Indo-China is that the frightfulness of war has stopped. In terms of grand strategy, it represents for the democracies a military and diplomatic defeat of considerable magnitude. It is, undoubtedly, another nail in the coffin of white prestige in Asia. After seven year3 of fighting, involving great loss of life and the outpouring of huge subsidies from the United States of America, our ally, France, has been driven to seek a negotiated :peace. In the result, Indo-China is no longer to be held. It is to be relinquished by instalments - most of Viet Nam now; the remainder, one must assume, after the elections in 1956. The majority of the Vietnamese population has already passed under Communist control. Partition, on the model of Korea, is explicitly denied. However, it is scarcely conceivable that in the elections that are to be held in 1956, the Communists, with their superior military might, their propaganda and their crusading zeal will not win. Let no man imagine that this settlement is final. Is international communism to renounce its ambition at the seventeenth parallel? To assume that, would be contrary to all previous experience. Viet Minh pressure on neighbouring Laos and Cambodia will continue relentlessly, despite what was said and settled a fortnight ago at Geneva. Already, the Viet Minh are masters of a considerable degree of territory contiguous to Siam and Burma. “Who can doubt that these two countries are not next on the list to be struck down? Coming further south, is it not reasonable to suppose that Malaya will shortly be affected? We can anticipate once more a recrudescence of terrorism throughout that peninsula. Who of us can view with equanimity the internal state of our nearest foreign neighbour, Indonesia? The Government of that country is riding uneasily in the saddle, unable to exert its authority throughout its own domains ; whilst the Indonesian Parliament still lacks the sanction of popular elections.

The Prime Minister is wise in assuming that the Viet Minh victory, confirmed at Geneva, will strengthen the Communist cause throughout Asia. He is also right in affirming that there is not a moment to lose so far as the Anglo-American powers are concerned. The war, indeed, has ceased, but the torrent of which war was the expression progresses. In common with the great majority of Australians, I welcome the intense interest shown by the United States of America in a theatre so vital to Australia. It is unnecessary to argue now whether

Mr. John Foster Dulles was right in seeking a South-East Asia Treaty Organization before the Geneva conference was held. There were obvious objections to such a move, but, at least in defence of the American Secretary of State, it can be said that he was realistic. Whatever honorable members may feel on this question, it is as clear as summer sunlight that a joint defence organization must be established forthwith having the United Kingdom as its cornerstone, and buttressed by the United States and Australia.

Let us all support the Prime Minister in trying to persuade those nations in Asia, which arc as interested as ourselves in opposing Communist imperialism, to become partners in this grand alliance. Happily, Siam and the Philippines appear willing. Perhaps Burma, with its experience of red insurrection, and because of its natural fear of Communist penetration, will regard its true friends with a less suspicious eye. The Minister for External Affairs has told us of his attempt to interest the Governments of India and Pakistan in this scheme. We are naturally disappointed that they are apparently viewing it coldly. One must respect their motives anc? their reactions, but it is not too much to hope that in the coming months they may revise their estimates and be prepared to join the organization at a subsequent stage. In discussing this matter we should emphasize how wrong it is of any section of Asian opinion to interpret Australian support for Seato as a reactionary attempt to restore so-called colonialism in the East. It is regrettable, for example, to find the Prime Minister of Ceylon, Sir John Kotelawala, only last week using the phrase, “ a revival 0 western imperialism”, in connexion with this proposed pact. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that colonialism, as such, is a phase of the past. It has gone into history. No European nation is thinking along those lines to-day. Long before World War II. - the Leader of the Opposition, if he were more just, might have emphasized this point - British policy throughout the Empire aimed at self-government by progressive stages. During a great period, British administrators gave those over whom they ruled, tutelage, and an increasing share of local administration. Since the end of World War II., Great Britain has shown a generosity, an enlightenment, and a recognition of national aspirations, unparalleled in the history of any imperial power. India and Burma were granted their independence. Ceylon has received dominion status. The Gold Coast and Nigeria are on the point of attaining a similar prize. Greatly enhanced authority is now being conferred on the legislatures of Malaya and Singapore.

This liberal, understanding spirit is not confined to the Mother Country. It, likewise, animates Australia’s approach to our northern neighbours. We have shown over the years a strong practical sympathy with their needs. The Colombo plan, be it ever remembered to the credit of this Government, was launched in 3950. Its contribution, it is true, has so far been limited, but it proclaims an important principle capable of great expansion. It shows plainly to the five con li tries which we are succouring that, far from seeking to dominate them, we wish to elevate their living standards nearer to our own. I believe that the Government will do more in this direction. It is obvious that it should. I also hope that the Australian people, both on grounds of humanity and of national interest, will sanction an increasing diversion of the proceeds of taxation for this purpose over a period which, inevitably, will endure for many years.

No discussion of Australia’s Asian policy can be adequate without reference to the contentious subject of China. I have been surprised that in this debate practically no honorable member, with the exception of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), has alluded to this phase of our international relations. Honorable members are sharply divided as to the attitude we should adopt towards this ancient nation, now recovering like a giant from 40 years of internal disorders. We should, I suggest, distinguish between short-term’ and long-term policies. It is unreasonable of Mr. Chou-En-Lai to expect diplomatic recognition at this stage by the United States of America, Australia, or any other democratic country. British experience in this respect since 1950 has been anything but encouraging. Moreover, the Chinese have been declared aggressors in Korea by the United Nations; and their intervention in Indo-China is a matter of common knowledge. Before China can expect diplomatic recognition and admission to the United Nations, it must first prove itself a good neighbour, and willing to conduct itself according to the principles of the Charter. Hitherto, China’s conduct has been the reverse. The Peking Government is symbolized by those pirates who, from time immemorial, have infested the Canton River.

Nevertheless, it is folly for us to ignore China. After all, Australia is a Pacific power, and we find ourselves, broadly speaking, in the same ocean as the Chinese. It seems probable that the Communist regime has come to stay. We cannot depose Mao-Tse-Tung and his armies by our own actions. Neither can we disregard indefinitely the rulers of one-fifth of the world’s population. Without prejudice to the creation and maintenance of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, it will be in Australia’s interests to aim ultimately at achieving a modus vivendi with Peking. However repugnant this may sound to many people, we are confronted by these facts. First, China is rapidly gaining strength. Its troops in Korea have proved themselves to be of high quality. Reports from Australian servicemen returning from Korea are disconcerting and disturbing. China’s intervention in Indo-China has been largely responsible for France’s defeat. Secondly, there will be no stability in East Asia, so long as China is bent upon disturbing it. Thirdly, it will be wholly contrary to the Chinese character to become simply the echo of Moscow. China will evolve its own form of communism, suited to its needs. Marxism diluted, Orientalized, may well assume different expressions from those of Russia. One of the cardinal precepts of Anglo-American policy must therefore be the breaking of the Moscow-Peking axis. Fourthly, over the centuries, there has been contact between the British and Chinese people. Not only our ancestors, but those of us who have had personal experience of the

Chinese, both in peace and war, have found them compatible as a race. They possess characteristics in some respects sympathetic to our own. We shall be wise to use this friendly predisposition as a springboard for political understanding.

In the long run, we may have more to gain by reaching an accord with China, than by continually urging the rearmament and military resurrection of Japan. China may soon emerge as the dominant power of the Orient. It is just possible that it will prove more trustworthy than the arrogant, scheming and ambitious Japanese. In making these observations, [ do not wish to be misunderstood. This is not a plea for recognizing red China this year or next year. Nor am I arguing for compromising over Formosa, or bargaining from our present condition of embryonic South-East Asian union. But I do ask honorable members to distinguish between short-term and longterm objectives, and not to close their minds to establishing relations with Peking whenever that government has displayed convincingly its good intentions. During the coming years, whilst preparing for the worst, let us seize any fruitful opportunity of making contact with the Chinese, as the British Foreign Secretary did so successfully last month at Geneva. In our right hand we must carry a sword, but in our left hand we should also carry friendship.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- This is not a time for flowery speech, rhetoric and the calculated phrase to arouse public feeling, but it is time for members of this Parliament to consider dispassionately the problems facing Australia. The words uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey), couched in language more diplomatic than practical, have little relation to the problems confronting Australia at the present time. The people of Australia look to the Government for something better than double talk and language which gives no positive lead to the nation. At present, we need from the Government leadership of a kind that will give confidence to the people of this, our land.

The problems facing the people of Australia are real and grave. No one will deny that our position is fraught with grave danger. Our great poet, Henry Lawson, wrote that -

By our place in the midst of the farthest seas

We are fated to stand alone.

That is true. We lead Western culture in this area, and we have much to surrender, if the forces from the north, aided and activated by Communist aggressors, find their way to Australia. Because of that, there is need for action on the part of the Government, instead of long speeches which do no more than recount the past, and give historical surveys of happenings years ago. We want positive action at the time to deal with those problems so vital to our very existence. The ministerial statements on international affairs which have been presented to the House during the last fortnight, should have been made almost immediately after the last general election. The Parliament, if it is to play a useful part in the affairs of this nation, should have been summoned earlier for the purpose of dealing with the matters that we are elected to consider. The people of Australia look to this Parliament and the Government to try to do something to maintain peace, and, failing peace, to make this country secure against possible aggression. The measure of success that has attended the efforts of the Minister for External Affairs can be gauged fromrecent happenings in Indo- China. Peace has been secured in that country at a price which cannot be applauded by fair-minded people throughout the world. I deplore the fact that 13,000,000 people, who have fought valiantly for their freedom, have been surrendered and that essential industries have been handed over to forces which, perhaps, will use those resources eventually in further drives southwards. Because I feel that, the ministerial statements made in this Parliament have a very hollow ring. I believe that we should try to do something for the achievement of peace. What has this Government attempted inthat respect? It has not made a report to the Parliament on the matter. So far as I am aware, the Minister for External Affairs has not on any occasion made to the Parliament a statement that would help to achieve peace in this part of the world. If a course of conduct could be adopted where we lay the foundations of peace, and better understanding in the Pacific, I am sure that the majority of honorable members would be only too happy to grasp the opportunities to weld bonds of friendship between the people of Australia and our Asian neighbours. The reason is plain. We must live in the world with them. It is our destiny to live with them. But no proposals in that respect have been submitted to the Parliament. On the contrary, all the evils which bring the onrush of communism closer to Australia, and the forces that has been set loose by imperialism and exploitation have been allowed to go unchecked. I must be critical of the attitude of the Government of France to the IndoOhina situation. One can hardly feel otherwise on this subject. A country which has been unable to maintain a government from week to week, or month to month, could not be expected to look after its colonies, and preserve law and order outside its domestic realm. The Maginot Line complex has been the complex of France for a number of years. I believe that the spirit of France died with the fall of the Maginot Line, and has not been re-born since that happening, which was so unfortunate for the free peoples of the world. France, instead of building a strong and virile nation which could play its part in world affairs on terms of equality with the great powers, was content to rest behind the Maginot Line in the hope that all would be well, and the country would be secure. That complex has struck a grave blow at the spirit of France, and in my opinion, a moral decline is the result. The people of France to-day can see the unhappy fruits of their conduct over the years. I deeply regret that a part of IndoChina, particularly Viet Nam, has been handed over by a sovereign power to HoChiMinh's people without very much consideration for the inhabitants of that unhappy area who have fought so valiantly for freedom, and peace. How could that tragedy occur? The ruler of that un- happy land has been in southern France for some time where he has been enjoying the many luxuries, delights and diversion's to be found there. One thing that we have always been able to say is that, in any turmoil, trouble and strife, the King- is still in London. Bombs could fall on London, but the King was still in his capital. But the ruler of Indo-China was in southern France while his country was being divided between the rival forces. Now, we in this'- Parliament are being asked to authorize the despatch of our troops to areas where the inhabitants are not taking the defensive measures which could be expected of them. I have here the report of a speech delivered in the United States Congress, which states that, up to May of this year, the French authorities had not effected the complete mobilization of the people of Viet Nam. If that were so, it was a shocking state of affairs. I ask honorable members to consider the position. The world was not given an opportunity, through the United Nations, to come to grips with this problem. France desired to reserve to itself the right to deal with its problem as a domestic matter, but was not prepared to mobilize the people of Viet Nam to defend that territory. I can only con elude that the cause was lost from the beginning. I am not saying a word against the heroism of the people concerned. Those who fought against Communists deserve the highest praise. But I do condemn those in authority who surrendered the people who have fought for principles and their way of life They were surrendered by a government which sought to keep faith with a timetable at a conference at Geneva. Indo-China has suffered, and I believe that it is necessary for us to pay attention now to conditions in other parts of SouthEast Asia. What is the condition of Malaya, Siam and Burma? Are they prepared to play their part in the defence of their areas? If they are not, is it reasonable to suppose that we, in Australia, with a population of 9.00.0,000, should send troops to any of those areas? The position should be made clear. I am not satisfied that all is well. I am absolutely certain that all is wrong in Indonesia; the position there is most unsatisfactory. This Government may not 'be able to solve the problem in Indonesia, but at least it can do something about the problems of Australia. I return to the need for the development of better relations > between Australia and neighbouring countries. I have obtained details of our representation in various countries in close proximity to Australia, and I find that, in Indonesia, we have a Minister and six other persons, including typists, at Djakarta. That is completely unsatisfactory. I think we should be represented much more adequately. Our problems are linked with those of the Asian area, and it would be much better for us to reduce our consular representation in other parts of the world, if necessary, in order to concentrate upon representation in Asia. We should take a much closer official interest in Indonesia particularly. Travellers returning from overseas have told me that the Indonesians entertain an absolute hatred for white people, including Australians. This is a most disturbing state of affairs when Australians have only the utmost goodwill for the people of Indonesia. We have no territorial aims or ambitions, and we have no desire to take from other peoples anything that they possess, to exploit them, to develop any form of imperialism, or to dominate them as subject races. We are out to help the people of Indonesia and to cultivate friendship with them on the widest and most generous terms. If we are to do so, however, our representation in Indonesia should be on the highest level and as extensive as our resources will permit. We must try to reach the minds of the Asian people. I know that it is very difficult to bring the Occident and the Orient together, but we have much in common with Indonesians. For example, we have common economic interests. Let us. therefore, find out what goods we can sell to them in addition to the goods that they now buy from us. and what goods » we can take from them in return. Surely we can establish complementary trade relations to the mutual advantage of both conn trips. We have been told that the United Kingdom representative in SouthEast Asia, **Mr. Malcolm** Ma *r* donald is doing an outstandingly good job. Australia should try to work along similar lines and, in addition to the career diplomats whom we send overseas, we should send men who will really try to meet the ordinary people of Asia on all levels instead of merely making social contacts at the Grand Hotel or at fashionable luncheon and dinner parties. We should be represented by men able to talk to Asians of all classes. Australian representation at Dilli, in Portuguese Timor, also is most unsatisfactory. We have only a consul there. In Manila we are represented by a minister and two other persons. At Bangkok we have a similar staff. At Rangoon there are a minister and three others. At Saigon we have the same representation. At Singapore, there are a commissioner and four other persons. At Noumea we have only a consul and one other person. In my opinion, that is totally inadequate. Unfortunately we have no control over the foreign policies of other nations. We could do nothing, for example, to influence the attitude of M. Mendes-France, when he made a deal over Viet Nam to a time-table at Geneva. However, we can do much to promote the future welfare of Australia. My grievance against this Government ip that it is not doing many things that ought to be done now in order to preserve Australia's interests. If we stand in grave peril, as the Prime Minister and the Minister for External Affairs have said, the Government should be up and doing to provide for the development of the nation. The honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** spoke of the need for vast developmental works in Queensland. He referred to the urgent need for the construction of a bridge over the Burdekin River, but his remarks on that subject were lightly brushed aside. In my estimation, good transportation is essential to the defence? of Australia. It would be fatal to fall again into the mistake of providing too little too late. John Curtin truly ex- ' pressed the views of the Australian people when he said of the anti-Labour administration early in World War II. that its members were defeatist in outlook and in . their preparations for defence. That criticism can be applied with a great deal of justice and truth to the present _ Government. The shocking weakness of our defences in the Northern Territory. the failure to try to populate and develop northern Australia, the neglect of the Clapp report in favour of the standardization of railway gauges and the refusal to rationalize our transport systems so that, in the event of war, we shall be able to move men freely and speedily throughout this vast island continent, stand shamefully to the discredit of the Government. It has ignored Australia's urgent needs and has done nothing to promote security from attack. All our vital national works undertakings, such as the bauxite development project, the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, and the Bell Bay aluminium undertaking were initiated by Labour governments. Under this Government, we see such wanton acts as I have witnessed in the electorate that I represent, where the source of an important oil supply at Glen Davis was closed down and where an Army camp at Bathurst was declared to be surplus and made available for sale. That camp was vital during World War II., but this Government declares it to be unnecessary now. It is disgraceful that an establishment that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds should be disposed of at this grave and critical period of our history. The Government has shown no realism in such matters. We must, if we are to survive as a free people, establish a self-sufficient economy and a degree of self-sufficiency in military strength. We must be able to lay our hands on the aircraft, the motor vehicles and the other equipment that we need. It would be fatal to wait for war to begin before we acted. The failure of the Government to provide for our national security cannot be due entirely to its ignorance of our needs. Deficiencies are brought to the attention of Ministers from time to time. I have often reminded the Government of weaknesses from which we suffer, and I recall vividly one occasion when a Minister told me, in reply to a question that I had asked, that it was unlikely that we should be opposed in the future by a great maritime power. Apparently that member of the Government chooses our opponents and the sort of navy that they shall use! Anybody who understands the international situation to-day knows that the honorable gentleman was dangerously wrong. He should read Jane's *Fighting* *Ships,* which shows that Australia's potential enemies are capable of assembling a vast submarine fleet that could seriously inconvenience us in the event of hostilities. {: #subdebate-21-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-21-0-s7 .speaker-LLW} ##### Mr DEAN:
Robertson .- This is not the first occasion on which I have had to speak in succession to the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti),** but I listened with great interest to the speech that he made this afternoon. The honorable gentleman complained that the Government had failed to give leadership to the Australian people and that there was an urgent need for action at this period of our history. I noticed that he failed to say whether or not he supported the important line of leadership and action that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** announced, without any qualification, in his statement on international affairs. Indeed, no member of the Opposition has explained where he stands on this issue. Honorable members will recall that the Prime Minister said that the Government had decided that, in any great defensive organization of the kind envisaged in South-East Asia, Australia must accept military commitments. He also said - >Honorable members will not need to be persuaded by me that for us, as a democratic nation vitally at risk in these seas, to expect our great friends to accept commitments while om- own attitude remained tentative and conditional, would be utterly inconsistent with the intelligence, character and record of our country. As the honorable member for Macquarie doubtless realizes, this policy represents a great change from the previously accepted plan for the defence of Australia. Up to the present, we have only talked of the probable nature of our commitments in the event of war. Never before has Australia entered without qualification into commitments in advance of war. The honorable mem'ber for Macquarie asked what the Government had done to promote peace, and he referred particularly to the countries to the north of Australia. I can reply briefly but effectively to the honorable gentleman's plaintive inquiry by referring him to the Colombo plan under which great economic assistance has been given to countries to the north of Australia in order to enable them the better to withstand the menace of communism. The honorable member also complained of the possibility that the services of Australian men and equipment might be used to defend the people of Indo-China. I shall refer briefly to that complaint now, but I shall enlarge upon the subject later in my speech. The simple fact is that it is absolutely necessary for us to contain our potential enemies within their present geographical limits. The honorable member *referred to* Australia's lengthy coastline. It is true that, with our small population, our small volume of equipment, and our relative economic weaknesses, it would be impossible for us to defend that coastline effectively. Therefore, we must assist our friends and allies in every possible way to prevent the further expansion of our potential enemies. Of course, notwithstanding anything that the honorable member may have said, Australia has been making closer contacts with our neighbours in South-East Asia for a considerable time. World attention has been focused on this area only recently, and this is due largely to the recent events in Indo-China. The Minister for External Affairs made an important statement on communism in South-East Asia on the 16th May, when he said that Indo-China was a country - . . where communism is most militant and dangerous now that Communist ambitions in Europe have received a set-back. This region is of great importance to Australia's security Since then, of course, the cease-fire arrangement has come into effect in IndoChina and the industries of Viet Nam in the north have fallen under the control of the Communists, so that once again valuable territory and millions of people have been taken behind the iron curtain. Some people describe the events of the last seven or eight years as episodes in a cold war. That description is completely false and unrealistic. The Communists conquered North Korea and Viet Nam with hot bullets, and, despite all the conferences and peace negotiations, they have not lost effective control of one square foot of the territory that they have thus gained. We know only too well that more plans are being prepared for further Communist expansion. Communist imperialism, with its policy of enforced colonization by tyranny, is again on the march. That term "colonization" has been mentioned several times in this debate as a feature of glib Communist, propaganda. Such propaganda is used to disguise many deeds that have been inspired by Moscow. The Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** said that there was a governing class in England that would not recognize the just claims of the peoples of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, referring to previous colonization of these countries by Great Britain. But what are the facts? When **Mr. Attlee** presented the bill to grant India independence to the House of Commons on the 4th July, 1947, he used the following words : - >It has been the settled policy nf all parties in this country for many years that the Indians in the course of time should 'manage their own affairs. Members of all parties in the British Parliament warmly welcomed and supported the measure. The bill under which Ceylon was granted independence was similarly supported by all parties in the British Parliament. I shall refer later to the differences between British colonization methods and those of other countries, and to the fact that the people of the Asian countries have far more confidence in the British Commonwealth of Nations than they have in other countries. I said earlier that Communist imperialism, this new type of colonization with tyranny, is once again on the march, and that all of us are menaced. It menaces Australia and all the members of the British Commonwealth, the United States of America, Thailand, Malaya, Burma, Ceylon, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines. All of us must recognize that the attempts of the Communists to identify themselves with nationalistic movements in SouthEast Asia and elsewhere are based on a fraud. The facts are that Russian imperialism, which is the driving force of international communism, has enslaved the nations that are now the satellites of Russia in Europe, and is now trying to grab the Asian countries as well in the same way. All of us who belong to the free world must do our best- to prevent the continuance of this policy of grab. Of course, the people who are immediately threatened are those who inhabit the countries north of Australia. As has already been pointed out in this debate, there are approximately 170,000,000 people living within a radius of 2,000 miles of Darwin. The largest part of the world supply of tin, rice, rubber and other materials, is grown in that area. Suggestions have been made, both inside and outside this House, about the possibility of Australia sending its surplus wheat to some of the Asian countries. They are not well considered suggestions because, in addition to the reasons advanced by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. McEwen)** in answer to a question to-day, many Asian people do not eat wheat. We have had instances of wheat having been sent to countries that were facing a famine but, despite their hunger, the people of these countries would not eat it. Any such scheme that is envisaged should be investigated fully to ensure that the people of countries to which we might send wheat are willing to accept it. To those who think only of Australian defence - and speeches from the Opposition side during this debate have shown that there are such people - I say that the area north of Australia provides the most obvious route for any potential aggressor to approach our mainland. We must widen our thinking. The free and stronger nations of the world must help the weaker, threatened nations. Australia is one of the free, strong nations. We must arm ourselves against Communist tyranny and make such pacts as will halt the onward march of communism. The Prime Minister pointed out in his statement that there are free nations in Asia which are justly proud of their independence. If, in the beginning, some of these nations join any proposed pact only through the fear of communism, we must do all we can to inspire their confidence in us, so that our association with them can be lasting and of great economic value as well as of mutual military assistance. It is not surprising that certain Asian countries regard some Western moves with suspicion. I think it is not necessary for us to go very far back in out history to understand why.. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the Asians have more confidence in the British people than in any other people. History alao, shows us the- reason for that. I advanced' some reasons for it. at the beginning of my remarks. An additional reason is that the British have developed a more enlightened colonialism than any other country has developed. In answer to some of the statements made by honorable members opposite I shall give the House an example of that. Britain gave India a peace within its boundaries that was previously unknown, and later gave it self-government. Because of our geographical position alone, if for no other reason, Australia must be one of the leaders in forming any mutual pact. The first thing we must do i.? to treat the formation of a mutual security treaty as a matter of extreme urgency. We must make it plain that such a pact will not threaten the sovereignty of any nation. We must also ensure that any economic benefits that flow from the treaty will be to the advantage of all its members. . In addition, wc must work hard in order to ensure that we shall have the physical means to protect the other signatories to the treaty so that no member country will be abandoned to Communist tyranny imposed from without. The most important and urgent task will be to continue talking democracy to the Asian people as well as economic assistance. This is something in which I think the British Commonwealth could show greater energy than it has shown in the past. We know that elections are to be held in two years' time in Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia. It is no easy task to convert a country that has a high percentage of illiteracy into a functioning democracy, when so few of its people have a practical knowledge of the art and science of government. I think we can be sure that the Communists are already energetically organizing for the forthcoming elections. The British Commonwealth may be a loosely-knit association, but it gives a proof to the world that people of various races, backgrounds and religions can live together in peace and in profitable association. The British nations which have done so much to prove the value of democracy to the world should, I suggest, send teams into the Asian countries to help to bring democracy to them. Teams for democracy! They could assist, as the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** stated to-night, not only in the economic development of the countries but also in spreading the truth of democracy. They would be a counter to the highly organized cells of the Communists which have no doubt already started work in these areas preparatory to the coming elections. In this regard I.' should like to make one comment to the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey),** who is now at the table. I hope that the Government will maintain the representation in Laos and Cambodia which I understand it now has, and that it will increase that representation if possible. I consider also that it would be valuable to send a fact-finding mission from Australia to such countries as Thailand, Burma, and then on to Ceylon, India and Pakistan before the teams that I have mentioned are sent in. Members of this Parliament should be included in that mission, which should also include men with wide commercial and industrial experience, both inside and outside of Australia, as well as people with experience of primary production, so that the inquiries could cover a wide field. We could thus receive the best possible advice about the nature of the work that the teams that I propose would have to do, especially in the near north of Australia, in the countries that are most threatened because they are immediately in the path of advancing Communist imperialism. The mission, of course, would also be a goodwill mission, and would assist in removing the misunderstandings and barriers that we know exist between ourselves and the Asian people. The work of the teams, in conjunction with economic aid to the Colombo Plan countries, would provide an example of co-operation between the east and the west, such as exists in the British Commonwealth, and we might thereby be able to achieve the confidence and trust of the countries concerned. Finally, I wish to touch on the necessity for Australia to provide the equipment and troops necessary to assist any of our friends who join the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. In the last warAustralia became a base for our allies. We provided them with food, clothing and equipment. We must go forward in that way, instilling confidence in the people we offer to aid and working to our mutual advantage. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Pollard)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 266 {:#debate-22} ### INDO-CHINA {: #debate-22-s0 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY:
LP -- I lay on the table papers relating to the following matters: - {:#subdebate-22-0} #### Indo-China Settlement - Agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Laos, Cambodia, and Viet Nam. Declarations of the Geneva Conference, and of the parties thereto. Declaration by the Colombo Conference Powers. Statements by the Australian and New Zealand Governments. {:#subdebate-22-1} #### South-East Asian Treaty Organization. - Statement by the Minister for External Affairs of Australian policy. Copies of these papers will be available to honorable members as soon as they can be reproduced. *Sitting suspended from6 to8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 266 {:#debate-23} ### INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Debate resumed. {: #debate-23-s0 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor . -I am conscious of the fact that the subject before the House for debate, the matter of international affairs and foreign relations, is possibly the most complex and difficult that one could address himself to. I am also conscious that to speak on this subject involves a great sense of responsibility, and that the individual should express his views irrespective of the consequences and irrespective of the popularity of the comments that he might make. I believe that the peoples of the world,' irrespective of their religious political philosophies and modes of life, seek the four great freedoms which were so well phrased by the great Churchill and the great Roosevelt when they announced that they and the allied troops were fighting for freedom of worship, freedom from fear, freedom from want and freedom of speech. At the moment honorable members and the Australian people are, by virtue of a chain of circumstances directly associated with this debate, more concerned with a search for freedom from fear. During the last few months I have realized, by reason of discussions at Geneva and in the United Nations, and by articles published in the press of the world, that the people of this and other countries have expressed a real fear that they are in danger. When the phrase " freedom from fear " was coined, it was designed to convey to the people that it should apply not only to Christians, but also to the people of all parts of the world. That is why I say that I hope that even the people who are directly, and by inference, considered to be our enemies, will eventually be placed in such a position as will enable us all to say that we shall, by every means at our disposal, endeavour to bring about freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech and freedom of worship throughout the world. Anything that I might say in criticism of the policies of our great friends in the United States of America, and of our great friends and former allies of France, must not be considered to be other than a criticism of a very friendly nature. We look to those friends and allies to-day for further friendship and assistance, and they are very great people indeed and have the same Christian principles and outlook on life as we ourselves endeavour to preach and practice. During the long tedious course of this debate, all that the Government has put before us is an attitude. Indeed, no policy of any sort whatsoever has been placed before this Parliament. The Government has merely struck an attitude. It has brought to this House the outcome of the negotiations at Geneva, which have fortunately temporarily brought peace to the war-stricken part of Asia that is known as Indo-China. The Government has brought to the House the possibility of the formulation of a treaty, to be known as the SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization. Most of the speakers on behalf of the Government, including Ministers, have addressed the House, intentionally or unintentionally, to the effect that already the Government is committed to a SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization. They have not emphasized that at the moment no such treaty, nor, indeed, any concrete proposals, have been brought forward for discussion; nor have they indicated to the House the nature of the conditions that would be contained in a treaty that they consider should be agreed to by this country, the Americas and any other friendly people who may be prepared to join us. The Government has allowed us to believe that we are already committed to a treaty. Let me inform the people that no such treaty exists. It is quite true that the Government has given this Parliament an assurance that when a treaty, which they have almost committed themselves to in advance, has actually been formulated, it will be submitted to the Parliament for its approval. I repeat that the Government has lead the people to believe that a document actually exists, that proposals are in evidence and that now all that requires to be done at a later stage is to put on the table of this Parliament a treaty which contains certain written obligations on the part of Australia, the. Americas, parts of Indo-China possibly, and other friendly countries, and say " We have consulted our Parliament ". What they really mean to say is that they have confronted us with a *fait accompli.* The Government will say " We have the numbers so through the Parliament it goes ". Then the people will find that they are possibly committed to an obligation to send troops, arms, naval vessels, aircraft and war materials to the mainland of Asia under the terms of the so-called South-East Asia Treaty Organization. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- No one understands the position better than the honorable member. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The honorable member need not interject. I am not without some knowledge of what happens with regard to international agreements and treaties. I recollect the negotiations that took place in regard to the Internationa] Wheat Agreement. Australian ministers and their deputies meet the ministers and deputies of other countries. They concoct an arrangement and then go back and say to their Parliaments' " We have agreed as a government to be a party to an international agreement" and then, at the last moment, they throw the agreement on to the tables of their parliaments for discussion. They are involved in what is in effect a *fait accompli.* Of course in those circumstances no parliament has any other alternative, because of the superior numbers of Government members, but to give effect to the Government's arrangement. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Did the honorable member do that? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- I do not intend to answer stupid questions. {: #debate-23-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honor.able member should not answer interjections. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- I suggest that the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison)** has no right to interject while I am speaking. The tenor of this debate is that something is already in existence. The Government has not said directly that a treaty organization exists, but the people believe that there is some arrangement already in operation. The Government has a duty to make it quite clear to those people that no treaty yet exists. It also has an obligation to indicate now, quite clearly and unequivocally, the nature of the agreement that it will be willing to sign. I know the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** will say that the subject matter that the proposed treaty is to contain will be hammered out in consultation with our friends in America and the United Kingdom. But we want to know now what this Government believes should go into that treaty, and what obligations the Government expects this country to undertake. I make that statement with particular emphasis, because I believe that despite our small population, and because of our geographical position and the influence of our opinions on world opinion in the past, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that if we were to express concise propositions in this Parliament, and if they were to be wisely phrased by the Government and wisely conveyed to our friends and allies, our representations would have great influence. T have emphasized my friendship for the American people, and therefore I can say that everybody knows that at present speeches are being made and propaganda is being issued in the Americas about the policy that the world, and in particular those countries involved in SouthEast Asia, should, follow. There is a belief in some parts of America that in order to contain communism, the American peoples should have a foothold on the soil of Asia. There are people who believe that nationals in Asia should be deprived of their right to determine whether they will accept communism or otherwise. Indeed, I believe that that, opinion is very prevalent in the Americas. It is my firm opinion that we have a right to our political philosophies and a right to adhere to our great democratic system, which is the best system of government the world has known. But I remind honorable members that in World War I. we fought for the right of all people to seK-determination within the confines of their own territories. In those circumstances, if the nationals of a particular country decide that, because of the failure of other forms of government in their country, they desire to institute a philosophy or form of government that is alien and hateful to us, surely it is their right to do so. I believe that we should indicate to all the peoples of the world, including those in America, that as far as we are concerned - and I pay tribute to some honorable members on each side of the House for their speeches in this regard - we are not in favour of one Australian foot being put on the Asian continent in order to prevent people who are anxious to get rid of all European domination from exercising that which they believe is their inherent right - the right to selfdetermination. We should say quite frankly that we do not believe that Australian battleships and destroyers, and Australian aircraft, should not enter Asian waters and Asian skies to prevent that selfdetermination. In the past, unlike the Chifley Government, this Government has shown evidence that it has no foreign policy. During this debate honorable members, including the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** himself, have admitted that the trouble that has occurred in South-East Asia and Indo-China is largely due to an upsurge of nationalism, and that we should have sympathy with those people in their attempt to assert their nationalism. The Government has also said that communism has used these nationalist movements as a vehicle to get control of, or play a part in, the governments of those countries. But this Government does not tell us that while these people were engaged in an upsurge of nationalism against the great French people in Indo-China, the Australian Government was sending arms and munitions of war to the French in order to help them to destroy those people who were indulging in an upsurge of nationalism. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** says " Hear, hear ! ". He says, in effect that ha was a party to the actions of the MenziesFadden coalition when it shipped to Indo-China arms and all the other impedimenta of war in order to shoot down the people who were seeking nothing more than that about which the honorable member prates when he speaks of his service in World War I., that is, the right of people to self determination. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- That is plain nonsense. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- I do not expect the right honorable gentleman to .bring himself into line with policies that have been pursued with such marked success by the United Kingdom in Pakistan, India, Burma, and Ceylon - of course, I pay tribute to our enemies on the other side of this House for their participation in the Colombo plan - because those countries which comprise a very large section of Asia's population form part of the British Commonwealth. Those nations, to a greater degree than the Australian Government, comprise one of the greatest influences in the preservation of world peace that we have known. The Minister for External Affairs recently returned from Geneva. At Geneva, M. Mendes-France, who proved himself to be a very great statesman indeed, has been able to achieve those things that the mass of the French people, and particularly the workers of France, have wanted for a long time. The French people have been led to appreciate that they cannot continue to succeed in suppressing the people of Indo-China by force of arms and the imposition of the French form of government. M. Mendes-France, with the support of a section of his government, has been responsible for the endorsement of a policy of selfdetermination for the people of Indo-China. I stated that the people of Australia have not been presented with a concrete foreign policy since the Chifley Government was in office. If anybody wishes to have evidence in support of that statement, let him take up the fine book that contains the speeches of the late **Mr. J.** B. Chifley and let him also read the speeches of the present Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt).** The book which contains the speeches of the late **Mr. Chifley** sets out clearly and concisely that the Australian Labour party supports the policy that Asia should be retained for the Asians, and -that Australia should devote its time, its energy and its wealth to encouraging those people to raise themselves to a higher standard of living. That book also points out that the Australian Labour party is of the opinion that Australia should not pursue a policy, such as the Government would pursue to-morrow, that would support people who may be prepared to pour into Asia millions of men and much money and treasure that would be lost irretrievably. I make those statements with a due sense of responsibility. Government supporters have suggested that Australia should offer economic aid to the people of Asia. Some weeks ago I wrote an article in which I suggested that the Government should send 50,000,000 bushels of wheat to Asia, because at the end of November, 1954, Australia will have a surplus of 100,000,000 bushels. I suggested that the Government should purchase the wheat from the farmers at a cost of £32,000,000, although that course may require a retention of the present rate of taxation. The Minister for External Affairs stated that the people of Asia were rice eaters and that they would eat wheat only *in extremis.* Does the right honorable gentleman, as an intelligent person, believe that, although those people are rice-eaters, ,they would not be glad to supplement their diet with some wheaten product, enjoy it, and become more responsible citizens of their country ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-23-s2 .speaker-JRB} ##### Mr BOSTOCK:
Indi .- The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has treated the House to a good deal of rhetorical rubbish. Very few of his statements require a reply. He charged the Government with having no foreign policy. On the face of it, that statement is complete nonsense. The foreign policy of the Government has been explained very clearly on more than one occasion by the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey).** To put it in a nutshell, the foreign policy of this country is to make friends with its neighbours and to ensure its own security. That statement of policy covers all of the policy actions of the Government. The suggestion of the honorable member for Lalor that the Government, by its policy, is frustrating those people in South-East Asia who wish to determine their own destiny or who, to use his own words, are seeking self-determination, also is nonsense. The Government will encourage by every possible means, as its actions have already shown, the self-government and self-determination of any people. It has no intention of interfering with the domestic affairs of any nation, provided the domestic affairs of that nation are not shaped towards an end which threatens the security of Australia. To say that the difficulties and troubles in Indo-China are purely national is to close one's eyes to the provable facts. The difficulties and troubles in Indo-China are patently Communist inspired. As such, they are a threat to our own national security. The sending of arms to Indo-China was a proper action which was not intended to assist the French people to suppress any national movement but to assist in the defence of Australia against Communist aggression. It is inevitable that, in a debate of this kind, there will be much repetition in sense, if not in words. The international situation is such that Australia's very existence is threatened. That threat is obvious to any thinking Australian, but I do not believe that the Australian people as a whole appreciate the significance of the agreement that was recently reached between the French and the Communist forces in Viet Nam. Even at the risk of repetition, it is appropriate that I should trace very briefly a chain of events that may flow from the cessation of hostilities in Indo-China. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** has already warned us that we would be foolish indeed if we thought that the cease-fire in .Indo-China meant an end of the intentions of the Communist aggressors. The agreement provides that there shall be a general election in Viet Nam in 1956. If the result of that election were unfavorable to the democracies and if Viet Nam became a Communist State, which is within the realms of probability, and if Laos and Cambodia were overrun, the only remaining buffer State between Communist imperialism and Burma and Malaya would be Siam. Burma is a tempting bait to the Communists in their quest for world domination, because it is an important rice-growing country and, as such, must have an important effect upon the political and economic policies of the countries of South-East Asia. The occupation of Burma by Communist forces would be a direct threat to India. On the other hand, the conquest of Malaya, which is also a tempting bait to the Communists, would enable the Chinese to obtain substantial supplies of tin and rubber. The Chinese are largely dependent upon Russian resources. The fact that they dislike that dependence is revealed in their plans for industrial expansion. They are in great need of raw materials and, to some degree, Malaya could satisfy that need. Unless the Communist objective is greatly modified, we can expect the Communists to include Malaya on their list. If Malaya is overrun, it is difficult to see how Indonesia can survive. Indonesia, which is rich in rubber and oil, also is a tempting bait to the Communists. The Indonesians are likely to become half-willing victims. Communist propaganda in support of an upsurge of nationalism, particularly propaganda that would inevitably raise the cry, " Western New Guinea for the Indonesians ", probably would raise much enthusiasm in the Indonesian people. If western New Guinea fell into Communist hands, how long do honorable members think that the Territory of Papua and New Guinea would remain under our control in spite of possible intervention by the United Nations ? If that chain of' events took place, the penultimate situation would be that the Chinese Communists would sit at Port Moresby and look down the Queensland coast. That is a line of aggression that may be pursued by the Communists, and against which we must guard while we have time. Our best military safeguards lie in some form of collective pact. For that reason, the Government has proposed and has subscribed to the establishment of a South-East Asia Treaty Organization, on the lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But military preparation is not all that is required. In this regard I agree wholeheartedly with honorable members from both sides of the chamber who have addressed themselves to the subject. At this stage, it is vital that in addition to making military preparations we shall develop friendly relations with those nations of South-East Asia that are not already engulfed by the Communist forces, and that we shall also ensure that they realize the advantages of self-government, compared with slavery under communism, and exercise correctly the right that the United Nations, the United States of America, Australia and all other democratic countries will endeavour to guarantee for them - the right to self-determination of their own affairs. I emphasize that that action must be taken now. Australia's first line of defence is in Malaya, where, if necessary, we must stand and fight. It will be much easier and much more economical to assure the defence of Malaya if we preserve the integrity of Siam, the only completely independent state remaining between Malaya and Communist-dominated territory. In the best interests of peace we should immediately make it abundantly clear to the Chinese Communists that any threat to Siam will be regarded as a direct and immediate threat to Malaya, and, in consequence, as a direct threat to Australia. Holding these views as strongly as I do, I . was particularly interested to hear from the Prime Minister last Thursday evening that Australia had at last abandoned phantom military planning. By that I mean that, contrary to past policy, when we make military plans in the future we must, at the time those plans are made, consider commitments to back them with force, and not leave those commitments to be determined at some indefinite future date. I trust that those commitments will be substantial. I say so, because, as is well appreciated by all honorable members, no nation, not even the great United States of America, can defend itself alone. We all, ' great and small powers alike, are dependent for our security to some degree upon the support of our friends and allies, and Australia, in the situation peculiar to it, is probably more dependent upon its friends than is any other of the Western democracies. We must convince our friends that we are sincere and honest in our professed intention to defend ourselves. At present we have not succeeded in doing that. It is apparent from our defence expenditure that our efforts are badly lagging behind those of other nations. Defence expenditure in the United Kingdom is approximately .45 per cent, of the total' budget expenditure. In the United States of America it is about 70 per cent, of the total budget expenditure. In Australia, however, defence expenditure amounts to less than 20 per cent, of the total budget expenditure. This being so, we cannot prevent some niggling criticism occurring among our best friends. We look to them to defend us, but we are not ready to put forward anything like as great an effort as they are making on our behalf. {: #debate-23-s3 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -. Fraser. - Australia is a rapidly developing country. {: .speaker-JRB} ##### Mr BOSTOCK: -- I appreciate that, and I realize that we probably cannot afford to expend on defence an amount equal to 70 per cent, of the budget expenditure, but I point out that there is a great difference between 20 per cent, and 70 per cent. I am sure that we can do much better than 20 per cent. I trust that when the question of commitments comes under consideration, as it must and should do, we shall be more generous than we have been in the past. I trust that if the occasion arises^ - I do not know whether it will - the Australian Government will propose that Australia, as an independent nation within the British Commonwealth, should volunteer to undertake the responsibility for the defence of Malaya. I do not refer to full-scale defence in war-time, which obviously would be well beyond our capacity, nor do I think for one moment that Australia could assume unaided the responsibility for maintaining the peacetime garrison that is necessary in Malaya in present circumstances. The United Kingdom at present does not undertake alone the provision of the peace-time garrison needed in Malaya. It calls on its friends for assistance, and Australia has answered that call by contributing to the defence of Malaya. Should we not be justified in making a similar call on our friends for help if we accepted responsibility for the defence of Malaya, which concerns our very existence more than it does that of any other Western '1 democracy ? {: .speaker-KFD} ##### Mr Greenup: -- Would the honorable member leave Australia undefended? {: .speaker-JRB} ##### Mr BOSTOCK: -- Should we not be justified in asking Great Britain, the United States of America and the nations that it is proposed shall subscribe to Seato, to help us should we assume responsibility for the defence of Malaya? It may be that Australia's contribution will be so small that such an arrangement would be impossible, but at least we should make the offer and emphasize our good intentions and our willingness to defend ourselves to the utmost of our ability. If we were to expend on defence as large a proportion of the budget expenditure as is devoted to defence purposes by the United States of America, or even the United Kingdom, the proposal would not be so fantastic as it seems at the moment. In this debate suggestions that Australia should not send forces abroad have come from honorable members on both sides of the House. The honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Greenup)** a moment ago asked whether I would leave Australia undefended. My reply is that the consequences will be nothing short of national suicide if we devote our military resources to the strengthening of defence forces in Australia and complacently sit behind them until we are attacked within our own territory. Our first line of defence at present lies in Malaya, and not in Australia. It might be inferred from what I have said that I place more emphasis on the military aspect of this problem than on the economic aspect, but I do not intend to convey that impression. Every one knows from experience that it is impossible to come to terms or to bargain with the Soviet and Communist powers except from a position of strength. Consequently, economic measures against communism are likely to be nullified unless the democracies can back them with strength in the form of military preparedness. It is necessary, therefore, that the two instruments of military and economic measures for our defence be used in conjunction. We should do much better to fight hopefully in Malaya than forlornly in Queensland. {: #debate-23-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The fact that for more than three years the House has not been allowed to participate in a debate on foreign affairs is a damning indictment of the Government. The last debate of any length on a ministerial statement on foreign affairs occurred on the 10th July, 1951, and occupied two hours and 40 minutes. On the 6th May, 1952, a statement on international affairs by the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey)** was debated for a mere eighteen minutes. The next statement on international affairs by the Minister that was debated at all was made on the 5th September, 1952. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Before the House had the advantage of the honorable member's presence ! {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Things have improved in the meantime. The Minister's statement on that occasion related to the first meeting of the Anzus council, which had taken place a month before. The statement was not debated until a year later, when the second meeting of the Anzus council was in progress. The Minister for External Affairs has made other statements on Korea, meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, and the like. None of those statements was debated, and all were allowed to lapse with the prorogation of the Parliament. During the last week the House has had the good fortune to hear statements, first, by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on foreign affairs, and, secondly, by the Minister for External Affairs on SouthEast Asia. We have had the even better fortune to hear the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** debate both those statements. This is virtually the first time in three years that the elected representatives of the people have had the opportunity to express their views on international affairs for the Government's consideration, and it is the first occasion in more than three years that the Government has deigned to listen to the views of the people's representatives on this matter. In the exciting and rapid movement of events during the last few months the Minister for External Affairs has twice circumnavigated the globe in the steps of his model, **Mr. Eden,** and his master, **Mr. Dulles.** Though the Minister saw fit to make statements to the newspapers in the United States of America and in other parts of the world, he did not say anything to the Australian press. The only Minister who has seen fit to make any statement on international affairs has been, of all people, the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Anthony),** who three weeks ago addressed the annual conference of the Queensland branch of the Australian Country party. In haranguing that rally of rustics the Postmaster-General declared that we Australians cannot live in peaceful co-existence with the Communists in this cold war. That pronouncement, fortunately, was in direct contradiction of statements that had already been made by President Eisenhower, of the United States of America, and **Sir Winston** Churchill, the British Prime Minister. The declaration of the PostmasterGeneral has been emphatically repudiated in this House by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As a consequence of that rash utterance, the Postmaster-General, whose health in recent months was deemed to be rapidly qualifying him for a diplomatic post, has rendered himself *persona non grata* to every head of State except President Syngman Rhee of the Republic of Korea, and General Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Government. For the first time since Japan invaded Manchuria, there is peace on the continent of Asia, and for the first time since World War I. began 40 years ago, there is peace throughout the world. During the last three days honorable members have exercised their minds in recrimination and soul-searching at this unwonted state of affairs, and many honorable members have criticized the French, who they allege have let the free world down, and also the action of the Chinese Communist Government in intervening in Indo-China. I want to make my position in this matter perfectly plain. 1 do not blame the French one jot. Their gallantry in the seven and a half years during which they carried on the struggle in Indo-China cannot be denied. They may have been ill-advised. I certainly believe that they were, but it does not become any of us to criticize the forlorn hope of Dien Bien Phu. We can recall that Indian summer of French colonial glory when General de Lattre de Tassigny restored the French position temporarily and was, posthumously, awarded the grandest military title in the world - Marshal of France. At the same time, it is useless for us to blame the Chinese for intervening. China was not the only country to intervene in Indo-China. The Chinese were the first to recognize Ho-Chi-Minh as the head of State in Viet Nam. In fact, when the nationalists took over the occupation of northern Viet Nam, after the Japanese were defeated, Chiang Kai-shek recognized him in September, 1945, and armed him with Japanese arms. The French recognized Ho-Chi-Minh in March, 1946, and later that year negotiated with him at Fontainebleau. The French broke with him in December, 1946. It was in December, 1949, that Chinese troops reached the Viet Nam border. For the first three years of the war, Ho-Chi-Minh did not receive, because he could not receive, any help from Mao-Tse-Tung. Until the elections are held in Viet Nam in 1956 there will continue to be turmoil in that area. The tragedy is that those elections will be the first ever to be held in Indo-China. Australia faces the dilemma that if war comes and Australia is attacked, the only country that can render it any assistance is the United States of America. Yet the policies very often advocated by that country are in complete disagreement with those advocated and acted upon by all our neighbours. I am not suggesting that we should take notice, to the point of action, of everything that leaders of Congress and of the American armed forces say. President Eisenhower has followed a middle course, and in view of public opinion in the United States of America one must admire him for following a sane and consistent course. It is unfortunate that the separation of legislative and executive functions in the United States of America relieves members of the American Congress of taking responsibility for their utterances. It is also unfortunate that Admirals Radford, Carney and Stump are not members of a silent service. The solution that is often suggested for the dilemma in which we find ourselves is that we should join a South-East Asia treaty organization on the analogy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which has experienced considerable success in the northern hemisphere in stemming the march of communism in that area. But although the United States of America, the United Kingdom probably, and ourselves are prepared to join such an organization, none of our neighbours are prepared to do so. India has certainly said that it will not join, and Indonesia and Burma have taken a similar stand, whilst Ceylon has said that it will follow India. Pakistan has said that it will attend a conference on the proposed organization, but that country has not committed itself to join the organization. The temper of those countries is reflected in a statement that was made last month by the Indonesian Foreign Minister when he said - >Such a regional defence community in Asia should bc initiated by Asian powers themselves. For Asian countries the problem was how best to develop a. common defence based on unity of interest. If the South-East Asia Treaty Organization is to be valid at all, it must represent South-East Asia, but it cannot be said that the organization will represent that area if the only Asian countries that join it are the Philippines and Thailand. That fact has been publicly acknowledged in the Philippines in a statement that was made two weeks ago by **Senator Claro** Recto, the Nationalist Government's foreign policy spokesman. He said - >An alliance excluding India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon will not be representative of South-East Asia. Thailand is of particular significance, because it may well be the country in which the next civil war, as some people would call it, or subversion, as other people would call it, may break out. The reason is that Thailand has a great Chinese minority which presents all the makings of a civil war, whilst *coups d'etat* have characterized politics in the country in recent years. Fearful of the number and skill of the Chinese in Thailand, the country has been opposed to the Governments of Chiang Kai-shek and of Mao-Tse-Tung, and successive Thai governments have sought the assistance of outside powers to counterbalance the Chinese influence. Just as Japan provided that bulwark for Thailand during the war, the United States of America serves that purpose in the interests of Thailand to-day. One great fault of the South-East Asian Treaty Organization compared with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secured the support and co-operation of the government of every country on both sides of the North Atlantic seaboard, with the exception of Spain and Eire, and it also obtained the co-operation of the maritime powers of the Mediterranean. So, all the relevant countries were represented in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and for that reason it has been successful. Conversely, if all the relevant countries are not represented in the South-East Asia Treaty Organization the organization will not be a success, and we shall only delude ourselves in joining any organization of that kind in such circumstances. Certain phases of our policy have been allowed to continue for four and a half years to the provocation of the people of China and of all our neighbours. I refer to the question of the recognition of the Communist Government in China and to its admission to the United Nations. Whether we like it or not, all of the Colombo plan nations have recognized the Government that is installed in Peking. At Colombo, on the 1st May last, the Prime Ministers of those five countries, four of which are members of the United Nations whilst the fifth, Ceylon, has failed to gain membership because of the exercise of the veto by Soviet Russia, said in a joint communique - >The representation of the People's Republic of China, the Prime Ministers felt, would promote stability in Asia, ease world tension and assist in bringing about a more realistic approach to problems concerning the world, particularly in the Far East. It cannot be said that any of those countries are Communist-inclined, because in the same communique those five Prime Ministers stated - >The Prime Ministers- affirmed their faith in democracy and .democratic institutions and, being resolved to preserve in their respective countries the freedoms inherent in a democratic system, declared their unshakable determination to resist interference in the affairs of their countries by external communist, anti-communist or other agencies. We have to face the fact that the countries of South-East Asia, and the Colombo plan countries in particular, do not regard the Communist Government in China as being hostile to them. In those circumstances, they do not wish to aline themselves with either of the two power *blocs* as they regard them. A still more serious phase of our policy is that we say not only that the Communist Government in China is not, and should not be, the government of that country, but also, that the Nationalist Government in Formosa is, and should be, the government of China. We must recognize the fact that the government installed in Formosa has no chance of ever again becoming the government of China unless it is enabled to do so as a result of a third world war. When we say that that government should be the government of China we not only take an unrealistic view but a menacing one. The Australian Government should have recognized the Communist Government in China, in view of the fact that all our neighbours, including the colonial powers, Great Britain and the Netherlands, have recog nized it. We are menaced by the situation that exists in Formosa. The arrangements there have no international or United Nations sanction; and we must not allow it to be thought that if any attack is made on Formosa we shall regard such an attack as a cause for war. One fact that has emerged from this debate is that every honorable member stands for democracy and the preservation of peace. Therefore, the next thing that we must do is to consider how best we can preserve our system of government, promote it in other countries and prevent war, because only war will subvert our system of government in Australia, It is significant that the only countries among our neighbours who can be regarded as recognizable democracies, because they have a parliamentary or congressional government, are the five countries which the English-speaking countries ruled before World War II. and freed after that conflict. The British parliamentary system has proved successful in India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon whilst the congressional system has proved successful in the Philippines. A change of government has taken place in the lastnamed through ordinary constitutional processes. In these five countries communism is weakest. If we want to preserve peace and democracy in this area we must ensure that those countries enjoy self-government.' We must see that there is a will to. peace in that area. We must be neighbourly, and, at all times, adhere to the principles of the United Nations and to its processes. Our neighbours will be satisfied with that, and we, also, should be satisfied with it. I quote from a statement given to *Reveille* by General Carlos Romulo, the personal representative at Washington of the President of the Philippines and his predecessors. He said - >If communism is to bc successfully fought in South-East Asia, the will to fight it must first be there. > >That will cannot be created unless it can be shown that in combating Moscow's godless ideology, the Asians would win their freedom, plain and absolute. In that area we not only can but we also must adopt peaceful means of conducting our affairs. If self-government succeeds in that area, there will he peace and development. We must co-exist with our neighbours. The conflicts in Malaya and Indo-China were not reasons for our going to war. I conclude by quoting the conclusion of a speech made by **Sir Winston** Churchill in the debate that took place recently in the House of Commons on foreign affairs upon his return from his visit to President Eisenhower. **Sir Winston** said - >In the speech which my right honorable friend the Foreign Secretary made in winding up the debate before our departure, he used, in speaking about the relations of the Communist and free worlds, the remarkable phrase " peaceful co-existence ". This fundamental mid far-reaching conception certainly had an influence upon some of our conversations at Washington, and I was very glad when I read after we had left that President Eisenhower had said that the hope of the world lies in peaceful co-existence of the Communist and non-Communist powers, adding also the warning, with which I entirely agree, that this doctrine must not lead to appeasement that compels any nation to submit to foreign domination. > >The House must' not underrate the importance of this broad measure of concurrence in what was in this case the English-speaking world. What a vast ideological gulf there is between the idea of peaceful co-existence vigilantly safeguarded and a mood of forcibly extirpating the Communist fallacy and heresy. Tt is indeed a gulf. This statement is a recognition of the appalling character which war has now assumed and* that its fearful consequences go even beyond the difficulties and clangers of dwelling side by side with Communist States. Indeed I believe that this widespread acceptance of this policy may in the passage of years lead to the problems which divide the world being solved or solving themselves as so many problems do in a manner which will avert the mass destruction of the human race and give time, human nature and the mercy of God their chance to win salvation for us. {: #debate-23-s5 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore .- The honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** severely chided members of the Labour party, and, incidentally, himself for the failure to take advantage of the numerous opportunities afforded to them by this Government to discuss international affairs. The honorable member complained that the Government had hot given the House an adequate opportunity in the last three years to debate foreign affairs. He listed numerous occasions when statements on inter national affairs had been presented to the House by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey).** He may not know, and so I inform him, that it is the right of the Opposition to discuss, and to demand opportunities to discuss, those matters. Why have- not members of the Opposition done so? They find plenty of time to be obstructive on minor matters when they so desire, but they apparently have a disregard for serious matters. Opposition members may not realize the fact, but they have been severely caned by the honorable member for Werriwa. The honorable gentleman also spoke of the dilemma in which Australia finds itself as the result of recent events in South-East Asia. Of course, we are in a dilemma, and we shall continue to be in a dilemma as long as this country is divided on the fundamental issue of the circumstances in which we shall become involved in war. The cry of th.p Labour party is, " If we are attacked, what shall we do? " Are we to wait until Australia is involved in war, or are we to take action to ensure that war will not come to Australia? As long as the Opposition adopts its present attitude, I frankly see no salvation for this country from the menace that is coming to it. Recognition of Communist China was mentioned by the honorable member for Werriwa. I should like to know whether his expression of opinion is the official opinion of the Australian Labour party on the granting of recognition to red China. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- What if it is? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- If it is, the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** will have to eat many of his words. In my opinion, the United Nations cannot recognize red China. It is an aggressor nation.' Last night, we had the privilege of hearing a speech by the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr.** Keon), and I agreed with his statement that no nation should be allowed to retain the spoils of its aggression. I express my own humble opinion, and I think that it is the humane view, when I say that the granting of recognition to red China would virtually extend to that country our forgiveness and blessing for all that it bas done. The United Nations would suffer another ignominious defeat. Undoubtedly, the United Nations, in which the Leader of the Opposition places such great hope, has done a tremendous amount of work in various fields other than ensuring the security of various nations. Many countries looked to the United Nations for their security, and did not take defensive measures. What has happened to them? We guaranteed their independence, just as the Labour party desires Australia to guarantee the independence of India and the countries of South-East Asia. Despite a guarantee of independence, the Baltic States are now behind the iron curtain. The United Nations let the Communists take them. Intervention by the United Nations in Korea did not leave that country a free and entirely independent nation. The forces of the United Nations won battles in Korea but, in my humble opinion, the fact that the Communists hold one half of that country means that the United Nations suffered defeat. France' has lost a substantial part of Indo-China, and that is another defeat for the West, ls Australia to place all its trust in this international organization that guarantees the security of countries? 1 believe that a nation must take measures to secure its own freedom and independence. Even in this civilised and Christian country of Australia, force is still required to enforce the law. No one has yet managed to dispense with bolts and bars on his doors, or to discard strong rooms. A patrolling force is still required for the security of individuals and a patrolling force is still required for the security of nations, because the world has not yet become Utopia, in which such measures are not necessary. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- What should be done with the United Nations in the meantime? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- The United Nations is doing a good job in other directions. I' rely upon the police for protection, but I believe that I must be able to help myself in an emergency until the police arrive. Australia is adopting a similar policy. The mistake made by Opposition mem bers is that they regard communism as a political ideology. It is nothing of the sort. Communism is the worst evil that the world has ever known. It will undermine Western civilization, unless it is checked, because it will take from us the things upon which our civilization is founded, such as our religion, our family life, and our belief in a Supreme Being. Communism is not a political ideology. It is something that comes from hell itself for the purpose of destroying the world, if it possibly can. That is how I regard communism, and, because it is so evil, I believe that any means are justified to scorch it out, or to make certain that it does not gain a footing here. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann: -- What independence do nations get under communism? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- None whatever. Here in Australia, in this land of opportunity where we enjoy freedom and the greatest blessings of any country, we find communism in our midst. What hope, then, have we of fighting communism as it spreads southwards? That is our major problem. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- Give us the answer to it. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- Members of the Labour party will disagree with me when I say that the answer is not to sit down weakly, and wait until we are attacked. Events in the last few years have revealed that the Communists avoid an armed attack. The speeches of honorable members on both sides of the House in this debate have been based on the idea that we shall take certain action in the event of an armed attack by the Communists on Australia, or elsewhere. But the Communists do not make armed attacks. They employ the infiltration method, and that is the method we have to defeat. I go so far as to say that I do not believe that economic aid, free gifts and charity will defeat communism. We may win individual friends by the employment of those measures, but I do not think that we shall win the friendship of the powers. When all is said and done, charity is degrading to the receiver, and we shall not win the friendship of the leaders of the nations with whom we desire to be friends merely by giving them hand-outs. W e stall win their friendship by granting them assistance to develop their countries economically. We shall win the confidence of those peoples by showing them that we do not believe in communism. Members of the Labour party can help considerably in that respect by refraining from making excuses in this Parliament for persons who follow the Communist doctrines. That happens too frequently here. I am firmly of the opinion that we have not got the confidence, and we shall not get the confidence of the people whom we desire to be our friends when they are able to say, " We do not know whether Australians are half Communists or not. Look what happens in your National Parliament ". We must win their confidence by proving to them that we have military strength adequate to defend ourselves in the event of an armed attack, and to assist them to defend themselves against aggression. We shall also need to guarantee them their national independence, and the only way to do so is by recognition, precept, and example. They should be placed on a similar footing to ourselves in international councils. Those measures are preferable to the granting of economic aid. But we must impress upon those people, whom we desire as friends, the fact that we are not prepared to sit meekly by while their countries are overrun, or become the satellites of a foreign power without the use of armed force. Therein lies the biggest danger to us. We may find them the satellite countries of our enemies, even though no armed attack has been launched, and they may ultimately be used for an attack upon Australia. I believe that communism will never reign supreme here. It could gain control of Australia only by the use of armed force. Much has been said about the unfortunate situation in Indo-China. I do not blame the French for it, and I do not blame Australians for it. It appears to be an unfortunate fact that through the years, France has been the cause of tragedy to the British people. We have always had to pull France out of the difficulties in which it has involved itself. Sound advice was available to France prior to the cease-fire settlement in Indo-China and, had it been willing to take that advice, the tragedy might not have occurred. But it is too late to worry about that now. All that we can do is to learn a lesson from what has happened and make sure that a similar fate shall not befall other Asian countries. We must make certain that the excuse of nationalism., which is the big danger, the excuse of unsatisfactory government, the excuse of bad administration, the excuse of bad laws, and the excuse of the exploitation of one class by another, of which the Communists are only too ready to take advantage, cannot be advanced as reasons for changes that ultimately will bring those countries under the wing of communism. We have a duty to make our position perfectly clear to those whom we have to have as friends - India, Burma, Indonesia and Ceylon - all of which have no cause, on the ground of the suppression of nationalism, to allow communism to overrun them. We must tell these people plainly that we do . not recognize communism as a political ideology and will not tolerate it. There is no occasion for them to adopt communism. If their land laws are bad, if some classes exploit others, or if living standards arc low, they, like us in Australia, have the democratic right and the power to make necessary alterations without betraying themselves to a system that would deprive them ultimately even of the freedom and the rights that they now enjoy. Our first obligation is to make clear to the rest of the world that communism cannot be allowed to come any closer to our shores. Then we can provide economic aid - not mere hand-outs of wheat, eggs, butter and milk - to enable our neighbours to develop their lands and raise the living conditions of their people." if they are suffering hardships. By that means we can remove the causes of dissatisfaction. Finally, by means of our own military strength, and the pacts and agreements that we make with other nations, we must secure our own defences and guarantee our neighbours security against armed attack, should that eventually come. Let us guard, not only against armed attack, but also against the greater danger of infiltration by our arch-enemy, and let us be plain about it. {: #debate-23-s6 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot .- We in Australia, and the peoples of all other British democracies, have to face up to a very painful and humiliating fact at this stage of our history. The truth is that our. past has caught up with us at last in Asia and South-East Asia. We sowed the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind of communism. What have we done for Asia over the last 200 years to entitle us to claim its allegiance and co-operation in the present crisis in that vast areas? For centuries we have dominated its economy. We have ruled it politically through reactionary governments. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- Who is this "we"? {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- The democracies. We have exploited Asia's richest resources, not for the benefit of Asia, but for our own benefit. We have failed to lift the living standards of the Asians, we have suppressed their attempts at selfgovernment, and we have secretly despised their colour. We have given no encouragement to education or the improvement of standards of health. Yet now we are astonished that Asia is going Communist ! The real lesson for the world to take from the history of Asia was set by the example of the British Labour Government which in 1948 gave self-government to India, Pakistan and Ceylon. Those nations, together with Malaya, are now the only real bastions in South-East Asia against the red flood that is sweeping down from the north. Moreover, they still remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations. As a result of the conduct of the democracies in Asia over 200 or 300 years, they have alienated the sympathies of millions of Asians, and it may be too late now for us to apply a remedy. We have done much since the end of World War II. economically, intellectually, and technically, to help the poverty-stricken areas of South-East Asia, but the Colombo plan is years too late to prevent the upsurge of communism, and it is too limited in its scope to be effective as a weapon against communism. This deadly virus was active in the poverty, wretchedness and backwardness of the people of South-East Asia long before World War [I. That is why the genuine movements towards self-government and the removal of the white man's yoke were so easily and quickly captured by the Communists and exploited in their hands even to the point of war. The rise of nationalism in Asia has occurred 100 years later than it occurred in Europe. In the period from 1848 to 1S50 many European countries threw out their monarchies and, after much blood and error, achieved national recognition and self-government. There was no Com:munist movement then waiting hungrily in order to grab and mould genuine nationalist sentiment into Communist imperialism. But in Asia, awakening 100 years later, this has happened and the clear stream, of nationalism, which none of us would criticize, has been reddened with dire consequences to the West. This movement is dangerous because nations are having their nationalism shortcircuited or captured by communism, and also because they are being drawn into the vast vortex of the slow strangling expansion of Russian imperialism. North Korea, China, Tibet and Viet Nam are now under the red flag. The Geneva settlement was an attempt to stem the tide, but was Hanoi another Munich? Has this surrender by France only stalled off or delayed the inevitable? It is true that, under the Geneva settlement, Laos and Cambodia are to receive selfgovernment. But the terms of the surrender, which provide for elections in Viet Nam in 1955, have grave consequences for us, which the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** ably pointed out. If I understood the right honorable gentleman correctly, 13,000,000 people in north Viet Nam will be subjected to Communist propaganda for the next eighteen months. The 9,000,000 people south of the 17th parallel may be subjected to counterpropaganda, but the outcome of the election is grimly obvious. It is clear that the majority vote may favour the north and, in that event, the whole of Viet Nam, under the terms of the settlement, will be taken over by the Communists. From then on Laos and Cambodia will be targets for a barrage of red propaganda and intrigue. A terrific war of ideas aimed at enslaving the minds of their peoples will begin. Later, Thailand and even Malaya will be bombarded with this ideological weapon that is so expertly handled by the Communists. How, then, can the southward march of the reds be halted? "What weapons are available to the anti-Communist nations to enable them to counter-attack this destroying menace? That is the question that we all ask. It is the crux of the whole debate on international affairs. What is the answer to it? All honorable members who have spoken have attempted to provide an answer. I propose four methods by which the advance of communism can be halted. Our decision on this issue will decide the future fate of Australia and will probably shape the course of history. Five years ago I said in this House, during another debate on international affairs, that the future history of the world would be written in Asia, and recent events have demonstrated the truth of my prophecy. I maintain that there are four methods of checking communism throughout the world and in South-East Asia in particular. They are the military method, the political method, the economic method, and the ideological method. First, our defences must be modern, secure and adequate. As the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** said, we must show the peoples of South-East Asia that we will back up our words with commitments under any South-East Asia treaty. The enormous expenditure on armaments in Australia, which has totalled £600,000,000 in the last three years, is a military necessity, but I join with my colleagues in criticizing the way in which the money has been expended. It has not been spent in the most effective way. The whole of the democratic world is armed in order to defend our freedom. We have poured out many millions of pounds which, if devoted to constructive purposes, would have transformed -the face of the Western world. But Russia can wait while we continue to pour out our wealth in order to maintain our military preparedness. The Russians are a patient people and they can afford to wait for us to exhaust ourselves completely by this constant outpouring of our economic strength. Russia is determined to avoid a third world war if it can gain its objectives by bloodless absorption of small defenceless countries, or through another method, that of using others to fight its battles without involving Russian troops. Both of those methods have been frighteningly successful since 1945. In Korea the world saw for the first time an international authority, the United Nations, put an international army into the field to fight aggression. But it did so only because South Korea had appealed for military assistance. The situation in South-East Asia is different, because whereas South Korea called for assistance, and got it, no assistance has been called for in Indo-China. A military attack on communism by the Western democracies can only come if the United Nations is called into a purely national issue by the nation concerned. If that nation does not ask foi- help, then the United Nations cannot give it help. France fought its war in Indo-China for seven years alone. It was regarded by the French as a private struggle. No matter how valiantly the French may have fought it ended ingloriously. Viet Nam has been divided and probably will be entirely under Communist control by 1956. Indo-China might prove to be another Munich. We were helpless to interfere because we were not asked to help, so all this sabre-rattling by members of the Government is utterly ridiculous. They ignore the methods by which the United Nations works. A purely military answer to communism cannot come except in a war which we start, or in resistance to Communist, aggression, if the country concerned calls us in to help. Since a full-scale Asian or global war against communism would be an atomic war of indescribable consequences to both victor and vanquished - if there were a victor - it is obvious that short-term resistance to communism must be not an offensive military resistance, but a defensive military resistance. Therefore, we have to use other methods in this short-term policy, and use them courageously, quickly, unitedly and ruthlessly. If we are successful on the political economic and ideological fronts in this struggle, then a third world war may be averted and the military offensive weapon may not be required. What we need, then, since our military arm is a defensive one only, is the maximum employment of every other arm that we have, used offensively in the time still left to avoid an atomic war of Utter annihilation for mankind which, as **Mr. Churchill** said, would end with the victor standing on a heap oi rubble. How disastrous it would be if we were to rely on resisting communism by military weapons alone. I turn now to the three other kinds of offensive weapons that we can use. The first is the political weapon, which communism has used and is using with great success. Russia's diplomacy - and diplomacy is a word that covers a multiplicity of ingredients - has outstripped, outthought and out-manoeuvred western diplomacy since 1945. Our counter attack on the political front must be more intelligent and more sustained than that of the Reds if this offensive is to check communism in the South-East Asia area, or elsewhere. Included in this political approach is Western diplomacy coordinated and properly shared among America, France and the British Commonwealth. One of the weaknesses of the West is that the Western democracies are so widely separated, and that divisions, arguments and even jealousies exist between them. Russia, on the contrary, is a centralized authority ruthlessly united. That is an advantage in Russia's favour. Added to our diplomacy must be a "system of regional pacts such as were outlined in the Prime Minister's speech, like the European Defence Community, Nato, the Anzus pact, and Seato, the last of which must succeed or we shall have more trouble in South-East Asia. Democratic processes, however much we value and support them, are slow. Dictatorships, on the other hand, move fast. Another way in which we can combat communism on the political front by assisting general nationalist sentiments. The economic weapon is another great weapon that we should also use offensively. The Communists have been using it all the time. They promised land reform, education, a united government, absence of corruption, food and work to the people of China, Korea and northern Viet Nam, and will hold out the same inducements to Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Malaya and Indonesia. To starving, illiterate and unemployed people this is an overwhelming temptation, and the Communists have used it to great effect. Our counter-attack on the economic front, therefore, must include every economic aid that we can give to the countries needing it, even if that means a sacrifice for every one of us. Our slogan should be " Wheat instead of words ". Pood will build friendships in the East. The mighty Colombo plan is the greatest scheme that has ever been carried out by a number of nations in unison for the benefit of other nations, but its scope must be widened. Four nations have already expended a total of £500,000,000, on' the Colombo plan since 1950. A large proportion of that sum has come from the Australian Treasury. Machines, equipment, technicians and instructors have been sent to Asian countries, with which we have also exchanged students. The exchange of students is a marvellous idea which should be extended. These experts have been sent to help South-East Asian countries to improve their standard of living. What a tremendous weapon this can be. It is a tragedy that the Colombo plan was not in operation twenty years ago. At that time, however, we were sleeping between two world wars. Isolationism, materialism, selfishness and smugness dominated the whole set-up, and one of the results is that we have lost Asia. The fourth weapon is the ideological weapon. This is another weapon that we can use offensively with tremendous effect. We are still ignorant of its true value in the fight against communism. For the first time in this Parliament, on Tuesday night, an Australian Prime Minister mentioned the ideological weapon for use by our side, for a change, and it is good to know that the potency of that weapon is at last being recognized by Australia. Never has the war of ideas assumed such significance as it assumes to-day. I have studied Communist techniques for a number of years. Such a study shows how an ideology, such as the Communist ideology, evil through it is, can capture and enslave the minds of millions of people. Hitler and Goebbels used ideological warfare, with devastating effect. The battle of ideas i" raging today everywhere in the world, and the battle grounds are the mind« and sun-its of men. Tt is a battle of beliefs and of wa.y of life, and is a corollary to the battles on the political and economic fronts. Ideas are on the march to-day across the frontiers of the world. They are conveyed over the earth by means of the radio, the press, pamphlets, books, from the platform and at street corners. The Communists work on the minds of men cleverly, passionately and persistently, wearing down their resistance and capturing the unthinking and the unprepared body, mind and soul. They have done that with millions of people since the war. Evil to-day is ruthlessly and dangerously organized in nazism, facism and communism as never before. Surely we realize by now that one powerful idea or set of beliefs, whether good or evil, if frantically or sincerely preached by one man, can set off chain reactions that can mean the destruction or the betterment of mankind, or change the course of nations and of the world. Christ was such a man. Other such men have been Napoleon, Marx, Lenin and Hitler. Our strength is in our Christian ideology striking in a counterattack at the Communist ideology on a global scale making an ideological barrier in Asian minds and hearts against the onslaught of the Communist beliefs. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable gentleman's time has expired. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Turner)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 282 {:#debate-24} ### ADJOURNMENT Espionage Activities in Australia. Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harrison) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-24-s0 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP -- I rise to speak on the motion for the adjournment of the House, because late this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** thought fit to issue a public statement to the press and other instruments of publicity about the Royal Commission on Espionage in Australia and, in particular, about the problem of the moneys paid to Petrov, as has already appeared in the evidence before the commission. Honorable members, of course, are very well aware of the fact that I have twice been asked questions about this matter, and have twice replied that it has engaged the attention of the royal commission and that I, at least, am content to abide by the investigation of the royal commission and the report that the commission will make. However, this afternoon more than one reference was made in the House to this matter. These references were followed by a public statement by the Leader of the Opposition, which I take leave to describe as not only so hysterical as to indicate a grave state of panic on his part, but also as containing, if I may borrow a term from another place, a farrago of ideas, closely following the normal Communist line about this royal commission. First, I shall do something that perhaps I should not do. I shall read to the House the statement issued by the right honorable gentleman, and thereby give it perhaps a wider publicity than it might otherwise have had. But it deserves reading. It says - >One of the keys to the Petrov matter is the payment to Petrov of £5,000 by the Commonwealth Government, through the agency of Security Service. The date of this payment has been fixed at April 4th last. It is plain now that the payment was made in advance before Petrov delivered' his documents. > >Repeated questioning in the House has resulted in **Mr. Menzies** refusing all information as to when he authorized this large payment. I pause here to remind the House that 1 refused information because the matter was before the royal commission. That comment is, therefore, a singularly dishonest one. The statement continues- >It is certain that he must have been a wm re of it on the night of April 13th last when he made hi3 melodramatic announcement to the House- A melodramatic announcement which was followed, at that time, by a unanimous vote by the Labour party ! {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Not at that time. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- I shall resume the sentence - when he made his melodramatic announcement, to the House and the country about Petrov seeking and being granted political asylum. The picture he then painted was one of a" man merely seeking individual freedom in a democratic State. The sinister fact was that he received £5,000 for the sale of certain documents which the Government bought for the purpose of unduly and improperly influencing people of Australia at the general election, and that the people of Australia were kept in ignorance of the " deal " until after the election. I again pause to say this - is this a suggestion to the Australian people that the papers were false, that they were forgeries ? The silence of the Opposition is notable and should be recorded in *Hansard.* The statement continues - >Four questions arise - > >Why did not **Mr. Menzies** inform thu people of Australia on April 13th - nine days after the payment of the £5,000 - that Petrov, who only sought democratic freedom, was paid £5,000 in addition to being granted political asylum 1 If that statement calls for an answer, the answer is quite simple. T did not tell the House that on the 13th April, because I did not know it. The statement goes on - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Why was this vital fact kept back from the knowledge of the people of Australia from April 4th when the payment was made' until after the general election was over 1 shall answer that one. There were many vital facts not disclosed to the Australian people. For three days before [ made my statement in this House I knew the names of all the people who had been, or were, associated with the Leader of the Opposition, and whose names were mentioned in the Petrov papers, but I remained silent from the beginning to the end of the general election campaign. I should have thought that there might have been some people who would have imagined that that was playing the game pretty fairly. But now the right honorable gentleman does not, in this rhetorical fashion, ask me why I did not, half-way through the general election campaign, talk about £5,000; he does not ask me why I did not, in this House on the 13th April, tell the people the contents of the Petrov papers, because he knows that if T had done so he would not be here now. This document further asks - 1. Did the Commonwealth Government or the Security Service employ an intermediary or intermediaries to bargain with Petrov during 1053 and has any sum of money been paid or promised to this intermediary or intermediaries The answer is, I do not know. The Australian Security Service was set up by a government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member. It was continued by my own Government. If anybody in his five wits supposes that a security service, a counter-espionage service, does not have agents who do not appear, and does not have agents who are paid for their services, it is time that he woke up to the facts of life. Of course there were such agents when the right honorable gentleman was AttorneyGeneral. Of course there are such agents * now. How does anybody outside the kindergarten suppose that a government, charged with the security of this country, is to find out what is going on in Communist circles? How do people suppose the Government is to fetter Communist activities unless it has secret agents? Of course it has them. But I suppose the new idea now is that they all ought to be volunteers. The fourth question in this document is - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. What financial arrangements have been made for the maintenance of the Petrovs and what money, property or consideration have they received from the Government or the Security Service or from persons or corporations outside the Government itself? It is perfectly clear ; the matter has been stated before the Royal Commission on Espionage. The royal commissioners themselves have put questions about it and have offered views about it. lt is quite clear that these people are being maintained in cash and kind by this country, and we would need to be halfwits if that were not so. Here were people who, on their own showing before the royal commission, were being paid large salaries by Russia for their work. They had their own savings invested in Russia. *[Extension of time granted.]* **"Mr. SPEAKER.** - I remind the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** that his extended time is now limited to five minutes. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- That is all too short a time, but it will enable me to finish dealing with this remarkable document, because the best of it is the last. The right honorable gentleman's statement concluded - >I believe that when the tangled skein of this matter is finally unravelled - He is not waiting for it to be unravelled. The royal commission is dealing with it, but that is not soon enough for him. I believe that when the tangled skein of this matter is finally unravelled, the PetrovMenzies Letters case will rank in Australian history as an equivalent to the notorious Zinoviff Letter which was used to defeat a Labour Government in the British election of 1024 or- And here is the cream of it! - the burning of the Reichstag which ushered in the Hitler regime in 1933. [ am not unaware of the right honorable gentleman's views. I cannot profess to follow his state of mind completely, but [ know that it is one of his theories that the whole of this matter was cunningly concealed so that it might be used for the purposes of winning an election. Therefore, I say to the House and to the country that the name of Petrov became known to me for the first time on Sunday night, the 11th April, I think, or the preceding Saturday night, lt was one of those nights, when the head of the Australian Security Service came to see m? at the Lodge in Canberra with the first two or three literally translated documents that Petrov had handed over. By the 13th April, after consultation with the Cabinet, I was announcing the position in this House, and on the following day we established a royal commission. Therefore, the whole idea that there was some cunning concealment falls to the ground. Now, since we are forced to discuss these matters, may I say that when I was told of these things on the Saturday or Sunday night at my house in Canberra, oddly enough I referred to tha Zinoviff letter. I said, " I wish this could not have happened just now, because the last thing I want to have happen is something that may look like an election stunt ". I see that the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Makin)** is pleased to smile. I say to him that if this were an election stunt I must have performed it very badly. If this were an election stunt, it was a remarkable thing for a leader of a government to say to every Government candidate at the general election, " There is to be no reference to tha Petrov case at all ". {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Did they carry out your instructions ? {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- Yes, they did. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- No, they did not. {: #debate-24-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- They carried out my instructions, and the fact was that, right throughout the general election campaign, knowing these names, I observed unbroken silence. Indeed, I learned about the ?5,000 payment for the first time on Sunday, the 9th May, during the course of the general election campaign. When I was asked what was to be done about it, I said that evidence should be led in its proper place and context about the payments, and the whole matter should be then examined. Those were my personal instructions on that matter. Now it is said that I should have said something about the ?5,000, and that I should have said nothing about {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Mr. O'sullivan or Mr. Dalziel; {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
LP -- We all know them now. There is one thing that I am bound to say about members of this Government, we can read. We have read these things in the newspapers. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Oh! {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES: -- So, the right honorable gentleman, having enjoyed all the advantages of my silence during the last general election campaign, is now hysterically complaining because I did not produce one thing that he might have been able to use and twist on the public platform. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The right honorable gentleman's extended time has expired. {: #subdebate-24-0-s2 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- At last the oracle has spoken. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** has been questioned about this matter day after day in this House, and has refused to answer. At last this statement has produced some answers. If he were not hysterical and panic-stricken he would have answered the questions in turn, 1, 2, 3 and 4. *Government supporters interjecting.* {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- He has attempted *to* answer them, but he does not realize the implications of his answers. Why did not the Prime Minister inform the people about these matters before the general election? He certainly knew about them before then, but he said, " Say nothing, wait until the matter is heard by the royal commission ", so the matter was not referred to the people until after the general election. When the subject was opened, on the 10th May I think, at the Albert Hall, no expense was spared in order to get publicity for election purposes. At that time the Prime Minister knew, and counsel assisting the royal commission knew, that Petrov did not approach the Government out of love for freedom but for the consideration that has been mentioned. So it was not only the people of Australia who were deceived ; the royal commissioners were also deceived. One could always see the probability of these deceptions, but now we have heard them admitted by the Prime Minister himself. I notice him smiling; apparently he thinks it is funny. He is trying to put on an appearance of confidence. The position is that the documents were handed over by Petrov after be got his £5,000 in hard cash. The security officers knew it, aud well before the general election the Prime Minister knew it. The counsel assisting the royal commission must have known it, but the people' were deceived about it through the statement the Prime Minister made on the 13th April. The right honorable gentleman says that he did not make certain things public because he was so generous as not to mention documents that contained the names of members of my staff. What a wonderful man he is to adopt that viewpoint! This is the Prime Minister of Australia who, in October or November last, in a debate upon the Australian security service and alleged telephone tapping, said that it was the duty of the DirectorGeneral of Security to inform the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister of any important developments in connexion with security. The Australian Labour party, when it was in office in 1949, established the security service as a non-political service, and it reported to the then Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- It did not. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- The right honorable gentleman said last December that it did so. The fact that it did so is recorded in *.Hansard,* and the right honorable gentleman knows it. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- Rubbish ! *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! If tho House does not maintain order, I shall have to name those who offend. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- The right honorable gentleman denies it, but it appears in black and white in . *Hansard.* . The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** and the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** raised the matter upon privilege. The Prime Minister said that it was the duty of the Director-General of Security to inform the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister of such matters. Did the right honorable gentleman do so on this occasion ? No ! He remained silent. He did not perform his duty, and he prevented the DirectorGeneral of Security from performing his duty. The right honorable gentleman says to me, " I did not tell the people of Australia about paying the £5,000 to Petrov because I was good enough npt to mention the fact that the names of members of your staff appeared on a certain document!" It was a sale of documents. Petrov's object was political asylum. It is plain, on the evidence, that he was determined to obtain asylum eighteen months before he did. He began to collect documents and I have no doubt that, if those documents had been made available, we would have discovered a lot of things that have not been made known to the people of Australia. The fact that at the glamourized demonstration at the Albert Hall the information was not placed before the people shows that the Prime Minister was deceiving the people. If the right honor- . able gentleman wishes to talk about my staff, let me remind him. of this fact- r {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Ah! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Henty must not interject. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- I did not say a word. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member made a noise. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- If facts which were detrimental to the trustworthiness of these men and not merely names in documents had been revealed, did not duty and decency require the Prime Minister to inform the Leader of the Opposition of those facts? {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- Be careful. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- I did not hear about the O'sullivan matter until the day before that man was dismissed. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- Be careful. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- I am being careful. The right honorable gentleman is not being careful. Each of the matters that has been raised forms the basis of a proper question. The right honorable gentleman did not know all of the facts at a certain stage, but he knew them in sufficient time to have informed the Leader of the Opposition of them. He allowed the people to remain under an impression that was created in a dramatic way. The Prime Minister objects to the use of the word " melodramatic", but that night he introduced this matter in a melodramatic way. The right honorable gentleman, with the approval of Cabinet, had made up his mind by lunch time on a certain day to make his statement. I did not leave Canberra until 5.30 p.m. on that day. Not a word was spoken to me about the fact that a statement would be made, and I did not hear about it until 9 o'clock that night in Sydney. The Prime Minister's statement was not answered that night. I had to make a short press statement, and I stand by that statement in every respect. To the best ofmy belief, it is correct to say - the Prime Minister's statement confirms it and the people of Australia now know - that at the general election, although the Prime Minister and the security service knew that the money had been paid by the Government in respect of this information and these documents, the people were allowed to believe that nothing of that kind had happened. It was not until after the election that the matter was mentioned. The questions that were asked by the honorable member for East Sydney, and my own questions to-night, have elicited a response which, in ray opinion, is disastrous for the Government. *Government supporters interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- The Prime Minister has said that Government candidates did not mention the matter during the election campaign. It was mentioned in nearly every electorate in Australia. The Treasurer **(Sir ArthurFadden)** made public reference to it, and circulars were distributed in some of the electorates. The Prime Minister does not do these things directly, but he does them through such people as the Treasurer. This matter was placed before the people of Australia, and it was an important factor in the result of the election. It altered the result of the election in half a dozen electoral divisions. We are in a satisfactory position at last, because a few more of the facts have been made known to the people of Australia. It is a tangled skein, which must be unravelled and which shall be unravelled. {: #subdebate-24-0-s3 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr Speaker: Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harrison) put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.) AYES: 54 NOES: 38 Majority . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 287 {:#debate-25} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented : - > Public Service Act - Appointments - PostmasterGeneral's Department - B. A. Cohen, P.. E. Gill, G. W. Hofsteede, K. Latham, W. H. A. Levey, J. D. Mather, It. W. Naughton, B. J. ¥. Patten, G. H. Pell, D. M. Prichard, D. J. C. Smith, J. H. Smith, W. R. Turnbull. House adjourned at 10.13 p.m. {: .page-start } page 287 {:#debate-26} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* Govern ment Loans and Finance. {: #debate-26-s0 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows : - >The level of weekly payment to repay over a period of 45 years, (a) a loan of £2,750 at 4) per cent, per annum is £2 14s. 10d., .and (6) a loan of £3,500 at 3 per cent, per annum is £2 14s. 7d. These payments assume that interest is charged monthly on the balance outstanding. {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Royal Australian Am Force {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP on asked the Minister for Air, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that certain Royal Australian - Air Force personnel, serving prior to 1947, are alleged to have received fifteen days' paydeducted from their pay on discharge? 1. Is it likely that personnel affected will lose at least £35 each? {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. Deductions from pay .entitlements for this reason are not being made. Misunderstanding has occurred among some members of the Royal Australian Air Force who were appointed or enlisted before the 1st July, 1947, because they do not receive pro rata recreation leave credit on discharge, whilst members enlisted after the let July, 1947, receive such a credit. The annual recreation leave credit is fifteen days. During the war years, recreation leave was credited in advance, i.e. at the commencement of the annual period, but when it was decided to revert to the peacetime practice of crediting recreation leave annually at the end of each financial year, some difficulties! arose as regards members appointed or enlisted before the 1st July, 1947. It was, therefore, decided to continue to credit those members in advance. Consequently, when members who have been credited with leave on this basis are discharged they are not entitled to an additional leave credit in respect of any portion of the year in which they are discharged.' 2. See answer to first question. {:#subdebate-26-1} #### Manus Island {: #subdebate-26-1-s0 .speaker-JSW} ##### Mr Bryson:
WILLS, VICTORIA n asked the Minister for the Navy, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the cost of erecting each of the following buildings or . fixtures on Manus island: - (o) the residence for the commanding naval officer; (6) the administrative building; (c) the officers' mess building; and (d) the swimming pool? 1. Did the Department of Works approve of an expenditure of £9,000 for each of two two-bedroom houses on Manus Island? {: #subdebate-26-1-s1 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Costs of buildings or fixtures: - (a) Residence for Naval Officer-in-charge, North-cast Australian Area (includes £800 for detached laundry and native quarters), £13,380. (S) Administrative building. The proposal to erect an administrative block was not proceeded with. Several Quonsett huts, rehabilitated by patching and painting (cost not known), are used, (c) Officers' .mess building (galley, mess room, recreation room), £15,400. (d) Swimming pool, £3,000. 1. Two-bedroom houses: - Six cottages have been erected as the initial stage of a proposal to erect 30 cottages for which funds totalling £239,000 were authorized. Cost per residence would therefore be approximately (on authorization basis ) , £6,600. {:#subdebate-26-2} #### Asian Students {: #subdebate-26-2-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND z asked the Minister for External Affairs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What plant and materials have been provided for Indonesia by Australia since Indo- nesia joined the Colombo plan aid scheme? 1. How many technical students from Indonesia have come to Australia for study purposes ? 2. Have any Australian scientists or technicians been sent to Indonesia to train personnel ? **Mr. CASEY** - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - 1, Plant and material provided to Indonesia : - The Indonesian Government officially joined the Colombo plan in January, 1953, and since then has received the following assistance from ' Australia under both the economic development programme and the technical co-operation scheme of the Colombo plan- {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Indonesian Students: As at the 1st July, 1954, 94 Indonesian students have come to Australia for training. Of these 37 have trained in public administration, eleven in education, nine in food technology, eight in engineering. six in trade promotion techniques and smaller numbers in social studies, library work, medicine, civil aviation and agriculture. 1. Australian experts: Three Australians have been sent to Indonesia to organize a printing trades school and to train instructors in various aspects of the printing industry. In addition we have paid the fares of eight young Australians who have gone to Indonesia under the volunteer graduate scheme to work in technical positions .in the Indonesian civil service.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 August 1954, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1954/19540812_reps_21_hor4/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives12 August 1954

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN VISIT OF MR. CLEMENT ATTLEE

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DUTCH NEW GUINEA

Mr OSBORNE:EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:Minister for External Affairs · LP

QUESTION

SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr WHEELER:MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Morgan:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr MORGAN:

Mr McMAHON:Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

GRASSHOPPERS

Mr HOWSE:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TRADE

Mr PETERS:BURKE, VICTORIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr PETERS:

Sir ERIC HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

QUESTION

MILK,

Mr BOWDEN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:CP

Mr CALWELL:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:

Mr LUCOCK:LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr MINOGUE:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY:Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr HAWORTH:ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr McLEAY:Minister for Shipping and Transport · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr BEALE:Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr TOWNLEY:Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OP EX-SERVICEMEN

Mr FREETH:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr KENT HUGHES:Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr GALVIN:KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEALE:LP

Mr CRAMER:BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEALE:

QUESTION

BURDEKIN RIVER BRIDGE

Mr EDMONDS:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr Edmonds:

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr ANTHONY:CP

Mr JOSHUA:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:

QUESTION

CHILD WELFARE

House of Representatives
12 August 1954

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

Mr OSBORNE:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr PETERS:
BURKE, VICTORIA

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

Mr FREETH:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr KENT HUGHES:
Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BEALE:
LP

Mr CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

Mr JOSHUA:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KENT HUGHES:
LP

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944