House of Representatives
14 September 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1177

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question without notice. He will recall telling the House a month ago that Mr. Sandys’s visit in July produced for the first time on the political level a specific exchange of views with Great Britain concerning its admission to the European Common Market, and he will know that at the end of July the British Prime Minister told the House of Commons that during the previous nine months his Government had had useful and frank discussions with the Common Market countries. 1 therefore ask the right honorable gentleman how it came about that Australia and Great Britain did not discuss this matter on the political level during all the months when Great Britain and the Common Market countries were discussing it on the political level, despite visits by himself and the Treasurer to Great Britain during those months?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– In the nature of things I would have thought that this question should have been directed to somebody other than myself.

page 1177

QUESTION

HEALTH

Mr ASTON:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. What success has been achieved since the Commonwealth’s voluntary offer of financial aid to the States to assist the mentally ill? Is it a fact that the Victorian Government has spent its total share of money which was made available? What amount was made available to the New South Wales Government for this purpose? How much of that money remains unexpended?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– lt is noi easy to say precisely what success has been achieved since the passage of the States Grants (Mental Institutions) Act, which had varied application from State to State. Under that act, and as a result of the findings of the Stoller committee, the Commonwealth made the sum of £10,000,000 available to the States on condition that the States found £2 for each £1 of Commonwealth expenditure. This was done because the Stoller report indicated that the fundamental need of mental institutions throughout Australia was for expenditure on capital works more than anything else, and that a sum of about £30,000,000 was required.

The amount allotted to each State was determined on a population basis, and I may say that the States accepted’ this arrangement gladly. The amount made available to New South Wales was £3,800,000, of which about £1,900,000 at present remains unexpended. Of course, this amount is available to New South Wales whenever the State Government desires it. In fact, the total amount that was allotted to each State, including New South Wales, has been available since the act was passed in 1955. The rate at which the money is taken up depends upon the States themselves. -Two States - Victoria and Tasmania - have exhausted their allocations. The other States have not, and the amount still available for New South Wales is about £1,900,000.

page 1177

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Services whether it is a fact that there is a waiting period of seventeen days between the time of making application for unemployment benefit and the date of receipt of the first cheque from the Department of Social Services. If this is a fact, will the Government consider reducing the waiting period so as to decrease the great hardship suffered by many families who have no savings?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I assure the honorable member that as soon as a person qualifies for unemployment benefit the Department of Social Services pays it as rapidly as possible under the system devised for making such payment. There is no delay so far as the department is concerned. Quite obviously there is a waiting period of seven days before an unemployed person becomes qualified to receive unemployment benefit, but from that point on the Department of Social Services moves very rapidly and payment is made in the shortest possible time.

page 1178

QUESTION

CALLAN PARK HOSPITAL

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether it is a fact that some repatriation patients are accommodated at Callan Park Hospital. Has he seen the report of the royal commissioner on that hospital, and do the criticisms reported in the press apply to those patients for whom the Minister and his department are responsible?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have not yet seen a copy of the royal commissioner’s report, although I have tried to obtain one. I understand that at present the report is in roneoed form only, and has not yet been printed. At my request, one of my officers was allowed to see a copy of the report, and he has reported to me that the only criticism made by the commissioner about repatriation patients or their accommodation relates to the standard of accommodation in one small, old ward which is shortly to be demolished and replaced. There is also some criticism of the condition of one patient at the time when the commissioner saw him in circumstances which he has described in detail. Generally, the commissioner commented favourably on the standard of accommodation, the smaller wards, the absence of overcrowding, the better standard of food and the degree of freedom allowed to repatriation patients.

I should explain to the honorable member that, by agreement with each of the States, my department arranges for the treatment of repatriation patients, who need custodial care, in State mental hospitals. The agreements differ from State to State, but they provide generally for the right of inspection by repatriation officers and doctors, and they enable my department to supplement the food and other conditions if that is thought necessary. That has been done at Callan Park, and no relative of any repatriation patient there need have any concern that he is not being properly cared for.

page 1178

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade whether he will tell the House what steps are now being taken to sell what may well be a bumper wheat harvest this season. Does be know that efforts to sell additional quantities of Australian wheat to Thailand and other Asian countries may be frustrated by the action of the United States of ‘America in offering grain on credit and, or a barter basis? Having regard to the sale of wheat on credit to Communist China, will the Minister extend similar trading opportunities to other Asian countries?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The sale of the Australian wheat crop is in the hands of the Australian Wheat Board. The growers, who own the wheat, have a majority on the board. It is a statutory body set up to enable the growers collectively to sell their own product to the best advantage. The Government has aided at home by a stabilization scheme and, as honorable members well know, by an export guarantee on up to a quantity of 100,000,000 bushels exported. The Government has aided in a series of trade treaty negotiations to open and preserve markets for wheat in the United Kingdom and Japan, and for flour in Ceylon, Malaya and Indonesia. The total result up to the present has been a satisfactory disposal of the Australian wheat crop.

I cannot completely predict what will happen in the coming year. However, the latest advice I have is that Canada is experiencing a bad wheat harvest. Unfortunate as that may be for Canada, it may provide greater opportunities for Australia to sell its wheat this year. The sale of wheat is in the hands of the Australian Wheat Board. I have complete confidence, as have the growers, in the board’s ability to continue to sell with great advantage to the growers.

page 1178

QUESTION

NAVY BEANS

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether it is a fact that after the end of the last world war the machinery for a navy bean canning industry was handed over by arrangement to a co-operative enterprise of the farmers themselves on the northern tableland. Can the Minister inform the House of the prospects for the coming season? Have any arrangements been entered into for the forward sale of a certain part or the whole of the crop? Will such sale be on the basis of the quality of the product, and not merely upon a flat-rate price for good, bad and indifferent?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I am not aware of the early history of the canning arrangements in northern New South Wales mentioned by the honorable member. The navy bean industry does not come within the jurisdiction of my department, although we have helped the State organizations to dispose of the crop. As I understand the position, Queensland and New South Wales have disposed of last season’s crop, but Victoria has not totally disposed of its crop. The quality of the crop is reasonably satisfactory to the Australian manufacturer, and I would say that the prospects of disposing of the coming season’s crop, up to the volume of last season’s crop, are good.

page 1179

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service, deals with the publication of unemployment statistics. These statistics, as we know, show that unemployment is increasing and, further, that the number of those in receipt of unemployment benefit is growing in proportion to the total. I ask specifically whether the Minister will supply statistics showing the periods for which people have been unemployed, and whether he will state the degree of unemployment among new Australians in particular. In Melbourne, alone, over 1,000 Greek families are on relief through the Greek Relief Committee.

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The statements made in the honorable gentleman’s question are correct. As to his specific questions, I point out that the department advises me that it is not administratively practicable to give the exact figures as to the period of time during which people are out of employment. The general figures given to me - they are not particularly exact figures - show that people do not stay out of employment for any great length of time. I gave facts in support of that contention when I made my speech on the Budget. We have also looked at the matter which formed the subject of the second question asked by the honorable member, and we have found that it is administratively very difficult to do what he suggests.

page 1179

QUESTION

CATTLE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it the intention of the Government to implement the provisions of the Cattle Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1960?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I hope to be able to introduce in this House an amending bill in the week after next. The provisions of the legislation will then be implemented.

page 1179

QUESTION

AGE PENSIONERS

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Services. It relates to aged people who enter homes in order to be cared for, and who yield up their pensions for their care and shelter. Has the Department of Social Services any control over the amount of money that is handed back to the pensioners out of their pensions? In some cases the amount is very small indeed, almost contemptible. If the department has not jurisdiction to decide the amount of money that should be handed back, and if it is simply a matter for the homes themselves, will the Minister look into the position? Are these homes that hand back such a small pittance to the pensioners receiving aid through the scheme which enables them to obtain from the Government a £2-for-£l subsidy to cover the cost of extending their buildings or constructing new buildings for aged people?

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

– Under the Aged Persons Homes Act a Church or an approved charitable organization may apply for a grant of money towards the capital cost of construction of a home for the aged. If the application is approved the grant is made on a £2-for-£l basis. The grant having been paid to the approved organization, neither the Department of Social Services nor the Commonwealth Government has any control over what goes on within the accommodation provided. However, in the case of benevolent homes there is a traditional formula used for the division of the pension between the home authorities and the pensioners. That formula has been maintained in the traditional way with every increase in the rate of pension. In the case of other institutions, neither the department nor the Government has any control over financial arrangements made for the running of the homes.

page 1180

QUESTION

MENTAL HOSPITALS

Mr BLAND:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. It is supplementary, in a sense, to the question that has already been asked about the care of mental patients in the States. Is it a fact that the States were receiving more money, and to that extent were better off, under the system which provided for small daily payments to be made by the Commonwealth to cover mental patients, and which operated before the present system of capital grants was instituted?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There was a statute, the Mental Institution Benefits Act, in operation before the currently operating States Grants (Mental Institutions) Act was introduced in 1955. That act was passed in 1948, and it provided for a very small daily payment by the Commonwealth to the States for patients in mental hospitals. After the release of the Stoller report the system was changed. I think it is obvious that the States could not previously have been better off; if they had been, the appalling conditions revealed by the Stoller report would not have existed. I cannot give the honorable gentleman an answer for all the States, but I can tell him that in New South Wales, the payments made under the present act over the last six years have exceeded the payments made under the previous act for a similar period by approximately £900,000.

page 1180

QUESTION

UNIFORM COMPANY LEGISLATION

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I had intended to ask the Attorney-General a question but, in his absence, the Prime Minister may be able to help me. Will the draft uniform companies bill, if enacted, compel companies which are in the position of General Motors-Holden’s Limited to disclose their annual profits and dividends? If so, will the right honorable gentleman, particularly in view of his own expressed thoughts on this very matter, suggest to the Victorian Premier that he introduce legislation of this kind?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I cannot say precisely what stage the uniform companies legislation has reached, although my impression is that it has been agreed on by the Attorneys-General of the various States. I think that I read yesterday that the Premier of Victoria had intimated that this legislation would shortly come before the Victorian Parliament. Having arrived at a uniform law, certainly we profoundly hope that it will come into uniform application at the earliest possible date.

page 1180

QUESTION

SWINE FEVER

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Territories. Is it a fact that the importation into New Guinea of pork products from Australia has been prohibited owing to the outbreak of swine fever in New South Wales? Could the lifting of this ban on a State basis be considered where health clearances can be given by the States concerned?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is a fact that some time ago, reports of the occurrence of swine fever in Australia having been received, the Administration of Papua and New Guinea banned the importation of pork products from Australia. The attitude of the Administration on this matter is that if the Australian health authorities - we rely principally on the Commonwealth Department of Health in this respect - can clearly certify that an area is free of swine fever and that no risk to the Territory will arise from imports from that area, the ban will no longer be maintained. I think I should inform the honorable member that an outbreak of swine fever in Papua and New Guinea would perhaps be even more serious than an outbreak in Australia would be. There is a fairly large pig population in the Territory, most of it running under free conditions in the jungle or in near-jungle areas, and an outbreak of swine fever would present terrific problems of control to the Territory’s animal industry authorities. Furthermore, in New Guinea the pig is held in reverence even higher than that in which it is held on the Darling Downs. If, in the course of quarantine control, we had to try to kill the pigs of the villagers to prevent the spread of an outbreak of swine fever, we would, I am sure, run into trouble, not merely over the loss of property, but over the loss of an animal which is almost sacred to the natives.

page 1181

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 wish to ask the Prime Minister a question, since the AttorneyGeneral is absent. I should like to know whether there is any legal or constitutional bar to a former bankrupt, whose discharge was deferred for six months by a judge in bankruptcy because of his displeasure at certain unsatisfactory features of the case, subsequently occupying the position of Commonwealth Attorney-General.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The honorable member, in spite of his brief holiday, is living up to his usual form. We know perfectly well, as we learned the other night, that the source of his information is a man who publishes a thing called “ Things I Smear “ or “ Things I Hear “; I have never been too sure which. This man, who is now a good enough authority for the honorable member to vilify a distinguished member of this House and of the present Government, was described by the honorable member himself, not so long ago, as nothing but a blackmailer. A man who will rely upon one whom he himself describes as a blackmailer to assault and injure another member of this House deserves all the low opinion that we have of him.

page 1181

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Because of the dependence of so many other industries on the success of the motor industry, can he say whether any employees in those industries are likely also to be laid off for varying periods when 8,400 employees of General MotorsHolden’s Limited are laid off for three weeks in three States as from to-morrow?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I cannot give any precise figures about the possibilities, but I think the House should know that at least since November the associated industries have been put on notice that there would be a reduction in production and output. I understand, also, that General Motors-Holden’s Limited has itself warned its suppliers that it would be laying people off for a short period. We could therefore hope that if there were any repercussions they would be kept to a minimum.

page 1181

QUESTION

BUTTER

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry and concerns the price of butter on the United Kingdom market. I preface h by saying that the price margin between Australian butter and Danish butter on the United Kingdom market is probably no”, the smallest ever recorded, being only 5s. for choicest butter. I ask the Minister Is this due to the fact that British people are losing their consciousness of the brands of various countries, or to the fact that the quality of Australian butter has been so improved that there is now no preference by British people for Danish butter?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– Actually, Danish butter is distinctly different from Australian butter in taste, flavour and colour. It is consumed mostly in the northern part ot England whilst Australian butter is consumed mostly in the southern part of En land. But the opinion of the trade is that the narrowing of the gap between types is only temporary and really reflects the over-supply of Danish butter to the England market.

page 1181

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Two sections of the Commonwealth Constitution operate to the disadvantage of the aboriginal people of Australia. The first relates to the census, and the other deprives aborigines of Commonwealth action on their behalf. A> both of these disadvantages cause the aboriginal people themselves some concern, and also reflect upon Australia, will the Government conduct a referendum concurrently with the forthcoming federal election with a view to removing these difficulties?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I hope the honorable member will realize that it is not practical policy to talk about conducting any con stitutional referendum, after the necessary legislation in this House, concurrently with a general election. Nor do I favour having constitutional amendments discussed and voted upon at a general election. I know that honorable members opposite would like to confuse the issue at the election; I want to keep it clear.

page 1182

QUESTION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: Would he consider arranging tor officers of his department to make a critical examination of the workers compensation ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory, comparing it with the provisions of the New South Wales law? In the respects in which the ordinance falls short of the provisions of the New South Wales legislation would he consider amending it? In particular would he consider the position of a workman residing in Queanbeyan but employed in Canberra, who is injured on his way to work? Would he also consider the position of a claimant whose claim is disputed by the insurance company, and seek to minimize the difficulties that the claimant can suffer through loss of income?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I think that this question rather calls for expert advice from the Attorney-General. I will discuss it with my colleague and see what can be done.

page 1182

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr TURNBULL:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that, in order to ensure that the strongest possible case will be submitted on behalf of Australia in conferences with the United Kingdom on the European Common Market, a committee has been set up consisting of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade, the Treasurer and the Minister for Primary Industry. If this is so, in what way can members of this House assist this committee in its highly important mission?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– We have a committee of Cabinet on this important and continuing problem. It is not limited to the honorable gentlemen mentioned by the honorable member for Mallee. Two or three other Ministers are involved in it, but it is an appropriate committee of Cabinet, and there is also an interdepartmental committee of officers. The committees have already met once or twice and continuing work is being done by the officers. We have a delegation which, in a few days, will begin to take part in discussions in London on the official level with Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries. The work is continuous. It is designed to explore the position and to find out as far as possible what may be involved in any of the hundreds of different angles of this matter. There will be constant communication between our people in London and our people here. The Cabinet committee will remain on call so that it can discuss problems that arise in London. Of course, every Minister concerned in this problem will at all times be very happy if any member who has any notions about the matter will put him in possession of them.

page 1182

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Trade aware that his colleagues, the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Prime Minister, have expressed concern about the price of motor cars produced by General Motors-Holden’s Limited and about the profits of that company, and that one of them expressed the opinion that it would be an advantage if the prices were lowered? In view of the fact that the prices of these motor cars depend very significantly on the tariff, will the Minister for Trade take steps to refer the tariff on imported motor cars to the Australian Tariff Board with a view to increasing the price competition in the Australian economy for the products of General Motors:Holden’s Limited?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– It is well known that the Australian motor car industry has its troubles at the present time. The industry will be greatly interested to know that a spokesman for the Australian Labour Party proposes that its troubles should be greatly added to by facilitating competition from imports. I certainly would have nothing to do with the proposal, nor would the Government.

page 1182

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr BANDIDT:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Territories. As a small minority of Australians appear to decry Australia’s commendable efforts in the development of Papua and New

Guinea, will the Minister prepare and issue a short statement showing how much Australia spends each year on Papua and New Guinea, the way in which the money is spent, and with what good effect? I recognige that the Minister issues admirable reports each year, but I suggest that a brief statement by him would be more suitable for general publication.

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– I certainly will consider the suggestion made by the honorable member. I remind members of the House that in preparation for the Estimates debate I have already circulated to every member some notes on the Budget which contain, perhaps at greater length than the honorable member requires for his particular purpose, all the information about the progress of expenditure over recent years, and the main directions in which expenditure will be made in the current year.

page 1183

QUESTION

TRADE

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade: Is it not a fact that, in the last few years, as a result of deliberate government policy or government action there has been a considerable diversion of our total trade from the United Kingdom, and that to this extent we are better placed than we would be if the Government had not acted to meet any difficulties created by Great Britain’s entry into the European Common Market?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– It would be a mistake to suggest that there has been a deliberate government policy to divert Australian trade from the United Kingdom. There has been a very deliberate and continuous government policy to exploit new opportunities for Australian trade, and I am sure that any fluctuations of fortune for Australian commerce in the United Kingdom market are greatly offset by the fact that we have succeeded in diversifying our trade opportunities very considerably over the last few years.

page 1183

QUESTION

COMPANY PROFITS

Mr JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Prime Minister by referring to his reply to a question on Tuesday about the disclosure of the profits of overseas companies established in Australia, such as General MotorsHolden’s Limited which, since becoming a public company, has refused to disclose its profits. In reply to the question the right honorable gentleman said that if he had the power he would most assuredly compel such companies to disclose their profits. I now ask him: If the Premiers refuse to exercise the power will the right honorable gentleman, by way of a referendum, seek that power for the people of Australia so that the information will be available to the public and to honorable members?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The question is, of course, entirely hypothetical. I have no reason to believe that the State parliaments will not pass a uniform company law. If they do not pass one, then there will be a fresh set of circumstances, and naturally we will look at the position.

page 1183

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH STRATEGIC RESERVE

Mr SWARTZ:

– My question without notice is to the Minister for the Army. Is it a fact that arrangements are in hand for a changeover of the Australian battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, which is at present stationed as part of the British Commonwealth Strategic Reserve in Malaya? Also, when the new unit takes over, will it move direct into the new cantonment area at Fort George near Malacca where the whole of the British Commonwealth Strategic Reserve will be concentrated in future?

Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes. The battalion which has been in Malaya is at present arranging to move. We expect that the movement will be completed by October. The new battalion to go to Malaya will go direct to the new cantonment.

page 1183

QUESTION

CITY OF NEWCASTLE

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that a few nights ago, in a very pleasant and entertaining address at Newcastle, the right honorable gentleman described that city as being a microcosm? In that description he acknowledged the great wealth that had been won by the Commonwealth in the form of trade that flowed through the port. Does the Prime Minister realize that Newcastle has been able to achieve the fame he ascribed to it in the face of the greatest engineering and industrial difficulties, due to inadequate port facilities, railways, roads and educational opportunities? Is the Prime Minister aware that lack of finance could be a deterrent to the export of coal, steel and the other products which he envisages should take place from Newcastle in the near future? In view of the fact that, to do justice to his description of the city, there would need to be undertaken major port improvements-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honorable member is going a little too far. 1 suggest that he ask his question.

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– The Prime Minister gave a very informative address, Mr. Speaker, and I am seeking information from him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 suggest that the honorable member ask his question.

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– I shall certainly do that. Does the right honorable gen.leman realize that there would need to be electrified railways, improved roads and a modern autonomous university? Will he undertake to ensure that much more money is made available to the city during the next ten years than has been the case in the past, so that his description of the city will be justified?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– When I was making my speech the other night in Newcastle I noticed with great pleasure that my friend, the honorable member from Shortland, who was clearly visible in front of me, applauded me warmly. This made me feel pretty good because it does not always happen. However, I think I must remind him that already we have entered into arrangements with the New South Wales Government in relation to the coal-handling facilities at Newcastle which, I think, will make a very considerable difference. Broadly, we deal with the States on financial arrangements. Therefore, in relation to the city of Newcastle, for which I have a profound respect and which, it turns out, was founded by a chap of my name - he little knew that later on a fellow would be called after one of the principal products of the district - I must say to the honorable member that the matters that he has raised should be taken up by the city with the

New South Wales Government with which we deal and with which, I must say, we have dealt very handsomely for a number of years past.

page 1184

QUESTION

FINANCE

Mr CHRESBY:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. In view of the repeated requests that have been made in this place for financial aid for a variety of purposes throughout the Commonwealth, and in order to put the matter in proper perspective for both the Opposition and the Australian people, will the right honorable gentleman have published a statement showing what the cost would be if the Commonwealth were able to grant every conceivable request that is made from every corner of Australia?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I would hate to impose the task of compiling that statement on the officers of the Treasury, but I would be very happy indeed to refer the matter to the astronomy department of the Australian National University.

page 1184

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question without notice. Is it a fact that at Mount Wells, approximately 140 miles from Darwin, new iron ore deposits have been discovered which, according to reports, show signs of being the biggest and best in Australia? Will the Government make every endeavour to ensure that Australians retain control of the deposits instead of their being sold to overseas interests as was done with the bauxite deposits at Weipa? Will the Prime Minister consider establishing a commission, similar to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, to examine the possibility of developing these deposits on behalf of the Australian people?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I shall refer this matter to my colleague in another place, and put myself in a position to answer the question that the honorable member has raised.

page 1184

TARIFF BOARD

Annual Report

Mr OSBORNE:
LP

– In accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the Tariff Board

Act 1921-1960, I lay on the table the following paper: -

Tariff Board Act- Tariff Board - Report foi year J 960-6], together with Summary of Recommendations.

The report is accompanied by an annexure which summarizes the recommendations made by the board and indicates the action taken in respect of each recommendation. It is not proposed to print the annexure.

Ordered -

That the report be printed.

page 1185

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Hasluck) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 26tb September, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1185

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 have received a letter from the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) proposing that a definite matter of urgent public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely -

The Government’s failure to define its attitude towards the future production of motor vehicles for local and export markets. 1 call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The motor industry is the largest in Australia. In normal times it employs the greatest number of men. It has the most valuable equipment. Its ramifications spread most widely into other sections of the economy. Yet the motor industry, together with the home building industry, have been the principal victims of the deflationary policies imposed by the Menzies Government in 1951, 1956 and in the past year. It is the prime example of the policy of stop-and-go, onagainoffagain, hot-and-cold, up-and-down, fitsandstarts. The figures themselves show this very clearly. The number of new motor vehicles registered in Australia in August, 1951 - the month of the horror budget was - 21,878. By August, 1952, the registrations had dropped to 10,331. By March, 1956 - the month of the first supplementary budget - the number of registrations had risen to 20,164. The trough of registrations was reached in the following January with a figure of 14,785. In November of last year - the month of the next supplementary budget - the .number of registrations had reached 31,865. Last month they were down to 20,022.

Clearly, this industry has fluctuated greatly. The fact that this should happen to the largest industry in Australia indicates that something is wrong with the Government’s policies as they affect industry in general. Not only does the motor industry employ most men, invest most money and place most contracts of all industries inside Australia, but it is also the industry upon which we should rely more than on any other for export income if we ever are to get an export income from our manufactures. The things which happened to the motor industry in 1951, 1956 and last year were the result of quite deliberate action. On each occasion, there was an increase of 10 per cent, in the sales tax. When the last increase was removed in March last, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) referred to it as a deterrent, and there is no question that the Government has deliberately imposed deterrents, by sales tax and by credit squeeze, on the motor and housing industries. If things are bad, people will defer buying a house or a car. When money cannot be borrowed, a great number of people who want houses or cars have to forgo them, because those things represent the largest purchases which most people ever make in their lives. If one cannot borrow money, one cannot make those purchases.

The complaint we raise this morning is that the Government has failed to define its attitude towards the future of the motor industry. It now defines its attitude towards the future of the home-building industry. It now says that the proper number of houses to be constructed in Australia every year is 80,000. It made no such admissions after the credit squeezes in 1951-52 and 1956-57, but on this occasion, when the number of commencements indicated that the number of houses constructed would fall below that figure, the Government has announced measures to restore the figure. It seems likely that the home-building target will not be reached again this year. Nevertheless, the Government does set a target with respect to homebuilding, but it refuses to do so in connexion with the motor industry.

To indicate in another way the effect on production of the Government’s policies, I point out that in the months of May, June and July of this year the production of motor bodies was down 36 per cent., and the production of motor chassis was down 33 per cent, on the coresponding months a year before. The number of people directly employed in the industry by the motor manufacturing companies themselves has dropped- by one-quarter since last November, but when one takes into account the American technique of lay-offs, one finds that the largest company - General MotorsHolden’s Limited - is employing from time to time less than half the number of people it was employing last November. It is true that the number of registrations rose slightly last month but, in actual fact, that was largely because one of the companies reduced its prices and there were also more selling days in that month than in either of the preceding two months. The average daily sales in August were 870, in July 827, in June 875, and in May 915. That is, the downward trend has continued. There is no sign of an upturn.

The Government’s fecklessness and aimlessness in this matter were clearly shown a fortnight ago when the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) gave answers to two questions in this House. In reply to the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds) he said -

It is not for the Government to determine what is a suitable level of production and sale of motor vehicles in Australia. It can form an opinion about what it regards as an unduly high level of production and an unduly high capacity for production. My department has not . . . regarded it as part of its function to estimate the number of workers that might be employed in the industry.

Later, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), he said -

I do not know what the production capacity is, but in November last year we formed the opinion that a production rate that reached a level as high as 310,000 vehicles a year, and perhaps could have gone higher, was too great in the circumstances … it is not the function of any government to enter into the matter of the com mercial judgment of firms on how many vehicle* they should produce. Nor are we in a position to form an opinion on the exact number of vehicles that can be sold satisfactorily on the Australian market.

Later on - a week ago - this same’ Minister said -

We can now look forward to a steady improvement in the employment position throughout Australia.

And the following day the greatest number of lay-offs in Australian history was announced! But I am not wanting to dwell upon the shaky reputation of the Minister for Labour and National Service as a soothsayer. We must look to the future with very little guidance from him. He should have been aware of the productive capacity of this industry, because the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) produced in March, 1959, and reprinted last year, a book on the Australian motor vehicle industry which stated that the present capacity is approximately 335,000 motor vehicles a year, and plans in hand for the next few years will raise this to about 375,000, with some indications of still further expansion in later years. Therefore, the Minister for Labour and National Service should have known the productive capacity of this industry. And the actual figures show that the industry is working at half its productive capacity! That is a shocking waste of both equipment and skilled man-power. We cannot afford that material and human waste in our largest industry.

This unconcern about the trend in the industry reaches the very summit. The Prime Minister has encouraged increased motor production whenever he has opened new motor car factories, as he has done on several occasions. In September, 1955, he opened a new factory at Port Melbourne for Standard Motors, as they then were, and he said that the development of the motor industry in Australia since the war had been remarkable. He also commended the company’s plans for increasing production. I emphasize that that was in September, 1955. In March, 1956, justifying the deterrents then introduced, the Prime Minister said -

Proper counter-inflationary action requires that some temporary restraint should be laid upon the motor industry. We have the obligation to do what we can to prevent a good thing from distorting the general economic balance of the country. The registrations of new motor vehicles have risen from 156,996 in 1952-53 to 245,271 in 1954-55.

Production was already at that unacceptable rate in the previous September when he was commending an increase in the industry. Then, in January last year, the Prime Minister opened the Ford extensions at Broadmeadows, and again he complimented the company on the plans it had for extending. In the previous month, the number of registrations had boomed to over 28,275, a rate which, later in the year, the Government said once again was unacceptable. After the November measures were announced, the honorable member for Lalor <Mr. Pollard) quoted the Prime Minister’s optimistic forecast, and his great encouragement of the motor industry. The Prime Minister said that he partly shared the honorable member’s memory of the address he had given at Broadmeadows, but he did not share his gloom that people would be put out of work.

What is the Government’s attitude towards the motor industry for the future? Production was too great at 21,000 registrations in August, 1951. It was too great at 20,164 registrations in March, 1956. It was too great at 31,865 registrations last November. Yet shortly before March, 1956, and November last, when the trend was clearly apparent from the Statistician’s monthly bulletins, the Prime Minister was commending plans for increased production.

I come now to the export position. Motor manufacturing in Australia is entirely a post-war industry. That is, it is a completely modern industry. It is controlled entirely from overseas. That is, it has the benefit of the latest know-how from America, Britain and West Germany. It should therefore be a competitive industry. Again, more than any other industry in Australia, it has - except during credit squeezes - a large internal market which is the basis for any successful export programme for manufactures. Again, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom are the only countries which still produce motor cars with right-hand drive. The Indian Ocean area is the only significant area in the world which still imports cars with righthand drive. Yet our exports to that area are negligible. Half the motor production of Britain and Germany is exported. Italy exports a third of its production and France a quarter. But Australia exports between 1 per cent, and 2 per cent. We are not even self-supporting.

The justification for a motor vehicle industry in Australia is that it should save imports and promote exports. Our industry is not helped to do either. Last year, we imported £91,000,000 worth of motor vehicles, bodies, chassis and parts. The previous year, we imported £83,000,000 worth. Last year, we exported £12,000,000 worth of vehicles and parts; the years before, £9,000,000. There is no motor manufacturing country in the world - we are among the first ten; possibly among the first seven - which exports such a small percentage of its production. We are not yet paying our own way. I asked the Minister last April, when the Australian Volkswagen shares were taken over, what effect this would have on our export of cars and dividends and what did he intend to do about it in view of his proclaimed idea for partnership between Australian and foreign capital.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– I listened with interest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) to discover what it is he is grieving about in respect of the motor vehicle industry. He wants greater stability and more employment in the Australian motor vehicle industry. But his colleague, a member of the Labour shadow cabinet, at question time, less than an hour ago, wanted lower tariffs to induce more imports into Australia, to displace employment in this country, to weaken the financial structure of the Australian motor vehicle industry. What on earth is the policy of the Australian Labour Party? How can its members stand up here and ask the Government what its policy is when clearly Labour does not have a policy and in the last hour has been disclosing in this Commonwealth Parliament a conflict of views? Indeed, I should think there has been no more devastating threat to the Australian motor vehicle industry than the proposal that the tariff should be reduced. It is not long since this Government referred the question of tariff protection to the Tariff Board and the Parliament approved of the Government’s recommendation, which was that a substantial tariff protection be provided to our industry.

The policy of the Government is clear. We want to support this industry. That is why we have a tariff of the order of 27i per cent. British preferential rate and about 35 per cent, under the mostfavourednation column. If the Labour Party thinks that is too high, we do not agree. I think not much more than that need be said about the conflict of policy regarding the Australian motor vehicle industry between the Government and the Opposition. The truth of the matter is that the motor vehicle industry has thrived greatly during the life of this Government, lt is true that it is a post-war industry; but it is also true that the first Menzies Government introduced into the Parliament the first proposal for the establishment of a motor vehicle industry. However, war intervened and the industry was not established. Then the government of the day, when people were being demobilized and employment had to be created, naturally supported the proposal; and I record the fact that the Chifley Government gave support to the motor vehicle industry. The statistical fact is that the great growth of the motor vehicle industry has occurred during the life of this Government. This growth has been achieved through the policies of the Government and with the support of the Government in every conceivable way, and there is a solid record of expansion of the industry.

In 1950, there was in this country only one substantial producer of motor vehicles with a high Australian component. This producer, whose vehicle had an Australian content of 70 per cent., supplied within that year - about the year we came to office - 12i per cent, of the Australian market. What is the policy of this Government? It is a policy that has resulted in the Australian motor industry supplying not 12i per cent., as it did when Labour went out of office, but 95 per cent, of the Australian market to-day. The content is not 70 per cent., but is up to 95 per cent. The Australian content of vehicles produced by four of the major producers varies from 70 per cent, to 95 per cent.

The economic policies of the Government of last November interrupted and gave a bump to this industry, but I say quite clearly that this Government has as its high policy objective the continuous industrializa tion of the country and the preservation of maximum employment. Neither of those aims can be realized if the economy becomes unhealthy. It is notorious that the economy had become unhealthy towards the end of the last calendar year, and the Government made clear that it was in order to restore health to the Australian economy that it introduced the economic policies of that time. It is now common knowledge in the business world that those policies restored health. So to-day people need not babble about full employment; there is re-emerging the actuality of a job for every one who wants a job - not dependent upon a politician’s promise, but dependent upon the health of the Australian economy and the capacity of Australian industry to give profitable employment. I am sure that any thinking man who depends on wages would know that his real security is in the strength of industry and not in the promises of politicians.

That is where we stand. We believe that we are absolutely right and we are confident that industry and organized labour know that we are right. There is nothing inconsistent between the high policy objectives of the Government and the passing interruption to the continuous expansion of this and some other industries that occurred in a couple of instances in 1955 and last year when unhealthy symptoms had become apparent in the Australian economy. Today, the production of motor vehicles here is about 1,000 vehicles per working day. That is a magnificent industry in a country with a population of 10,000,000 people This little country of ours, with all its preoccupations with the development of a continent of 10,000,000 people, has the fourth highest motor vehicle population - if that is the right word - per capita in the world. It is exceeded only by the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. The great, powerful, ancient industrial countries lag behind Australia. We produce 95 per cent, of the Australian requirement of motor cars. I am advised that there is no evidence to-day that any one who wants finance to buy a motor vehicle on terms is unable to obtain that finance.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made some play of the fact that Australia is not a great exporter of motor vehicles. I think he must have had his tongue in his cheek because a young country such as this, with, as I have said, compelling preoccupations, and which was, ten or twelve years ago, hardly a producer of motor vehicles at all, has, as its first purpose in this field, the replacement of imports. The record there, of course, is prodigious. If I could say no more than that we have substantially replaced by local production the enormous number of motor vehicles previously imported, and thereby conserved to a considerable extent our precious overseas reserves, I would be a happy, contented and proud man. But I am able to say much more. I can say that beyond substantially filling our own requirements we are becoming an increasingly significant exporter of motor vehicles.

Any one in Australian public life would have been laughed at twenty years ago if he had said that this country would become an important exporter of motor vehicles. I have to-day, however, given the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) a reply to a question on notice which shows that last year, for half of which we were supplying a boom level of internal demand, we exported jolly nearly £9,000,000 worth of motor vehicles and motor vehicle components to a wide range of countries. Mr. Mclntyre, the general manager of the Ford Motor Company of Australia Proprietary Limited, one of our largest motor companies, announced as recently as last July that his company was to embark on a vast expansion programme, costing about £15,500,000, and that the prime reason that impelled the company to do so was the export incentive policy of this Government.

Honorable members opposite asked what was the policy of this Government in respect of the motor vehicle industry. That is the policy, and that is the result it has already produced - an investment of an additional £15,500,000 largely as a result of the incentive policies of this Government, which have given incentives to develop markets overseas, and under which a profit-earning company can literally charge to the Government 16s. in the £1 of expenditure incurred in investigating and developing markets overseas. What other country on the face of the earth gives such an incentive to this industry or any other industry to increase exports? And this incentive, I remind the House, was given on the initiative of this Government, and approved by this Parliament.

That is the story. I could go further, of course, and say that there is an added incentive in that a company can work its way out of all liability for pay-roll tax if it progressively and annually increases its export earnings. This is the policy of the Government, and 1 have given some indication of the results that are following the pursuance of that policy.

The automobile industry, wherever it is carried on in the world, is one of the volatile industries. It produces an essential commodity, but no one would deny that consumers may, if they wish, defer purchase of that commodity. In Australia, but also, and to a much greater degree, in the United States of America, in Canada and in the United Kingdom, there is a record of varying fortunes in this industry, and varying fortunes in different elements of the industry itself. It has some of the characteristics of a fashion industry. One section of the industry may win over the other sections at a certain time, just as occurs in fashion industries. That has happened here, and it happens from time to time in every other country in which the industry is established. However, although there is a story of severe fluctuations of fortune in this industry wherever it is carried on, 1 can say confidently that the fluctuations in this country have been much less violent than those that have occurred in the other great English-speaking countries - first, the United States of America, where fluctuating fortunes are notorious; secondly, in Canada, where they have been violent, and, thirdly, in the United Kingdom, where fluctuations of fortune have been quite significant.

I conclude by saying that the policy of this Government is one of support for the motor vehicle industry. It has become clear this morning that there are certain elements in the Labour Party that would depress the whole industry merely for the sake of compelling one company to take a lower profit. The question of profit, of course, has to be dealt with, but for my part, and I speak for the Australian Government, I would not tackle the issue of the profit made by one company by pursuing a policy that would put tens of thousands of good Australians out of work.

As to the economic policies that have been pursued, let me say that they have been pursued openly and that they have had no other purpose than the stated one of preserving the health of the economy, without which there can be no real development of this country and no growth of industry, and without which all talk of full employment is misleading and nonsense.

Mr Cairns:

– Mr. Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member has not spoken in the debate, so he could not have been misrepresented.

Mr Cairns:

– I have been misrepresented with regard to something about which I asked a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member should have taken the first opportunity available to him to make his explanation. He is not in order in joining in this debate in order to make an explanation.

Mr Cairns:

– Mr. Speaker, I am taking the opportunity-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is out of order and will resume his seat. At the appropriate time he can take any necessary action. I also suggest that honorable members on the Opposition front bench should be a little more silent.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The speech of the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) was remarkable in that it gave an explanation of things as they might be rather than of things as they are. The Minister said that it was the Government’s aim to promote economic growth, maximum production and maximum employment. Let me remind the House of the words used by the Opposition to describe the mater of urgent public importance that we are now discussing, because I think the Minister either ignored them or lost sight of them. We referred to the Government’s failure to define its attitude towards the future production of motor vehicles for local and export markets.

As the Minister has referred to the Government’s aim to achieve maximum employment, let me cite some figures, by way of giving one index of the degree of unemployment in the motor industry, from the most recent issue of the “ Economic Service “ of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures. The article is headed “ Disemployment Growth “. Disemployment is evidently a new word for unemployment. It gives an indication of the level of employment in various industries at 14th July, 1961. That is two months ago, and the position has deteriorated since then because this week 8,000 people are to be laid off in only one branch of the industry. The index covers a wide range of commodities, and the figures for automotive parts show an employment decline from 30th November, 1960, to 14th July, 1961, of 35.3 per cent., and a decline in average earnings per employee of £3 18s. 4d. a week. Is this an illustration of economic growth? Is it an example of maximum employment? What is apparent. Mr. Speaker, is a conflict in this Government between the policy of trade on the one hand, and the policy of the Treasury on the other. It is the failure to integrate trade with treasury that has caused the credit squeeze and brought about the sad plight in which this industry now finds itself.

We have quoted before from the glossy document published by the Department of Trade in 1959 in which the department pointed with apparent pride to the fact that in April, 1959 - not November, 1960 - the production capacity of the motor industry was 335,000 vehicles a year. The Government, as part of its trade policy, before import licensing was abolished, had granted import licences on a basis of sales replacement. That trade policy had built up the capacity of this industry to 335,000 vehicles a year in April, 1959. Yet, in November, 1960, nineteen months later, when the production figure for the quarter represented a rate of 331,000 vehicles a year, the Government became alarmed about the position. One of the ironies of this thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that as one enters the Standard Motor Company works, which is in the heart of my electorate, one passes a metal plate which commemorates the fact that the Prime Minister of Australia had opened extensions to the plant. But, only a fortnight after he had blessed the expansion of the works, the Government presented in this House a little budget which dislocated the motor industry and caused unemployment.

The Government did not learn its lesson then, for, in November last, it took the measures which have had the effects indicated by the index prepared by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures. One of the effects has been a decline of employment in this industry by one-third. Why has there been such a decline in employment? The reason is the lessening of economic activity. We ask the Government to take certain action, but that action is needed not only in respect of the motor car industry. It is needed in respect of a lot of other Australian industries. The Government ought not to tell an industry only when that industry has reached a certain level of output, or gone beyond it, that the level of production is too high. The Government ought to say that in advance. In other words, in our economy, planning has to become practical. “ Planning “ should not be regarded as a dirty word, as the Government sometimes tries to make it appear to be. An economy like Australia’s is so vulnerable in more ways than one as to make planning essential.

What is planning? It means co-ordination between the Department of Trade and the Treasury. At the present time, the very reverse of co-ordination exists. I do not know whether anybody will one day own up and assume responsibility for the colossal mistake that was made in February, 1960, when import licensing was abolished. But, again, I suggest that, when that action was taken, there was conflict between the Department of Trade and the Treasury, for the annual report of the Tariff Board, which had been published only very shortly before import licensing was abolished, suggested that that action was the last thing that the board expected to happen within a reasonable time. Does not that sort of thing reveal the conflict that exists between the things done by the Government’s left hand and what is done by its right hand, so to speak? Surely the situation is indicative of hypocrisy and a failure to face the facts, when a responsible Minister time and again talks about growth, maximum production and maximum employment in times in which deputations of unemployed people visit this building. Only yesterday, such a deputation came here.

This problem is related also to the migration programme, because the motor industry is one that prides itself on having absorbed new Australians into the work force, I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) this morning whether he would publish figures indicating the nationalities of new Australians who are unemployed and the duration of their unemployment, and he replied that he would not. The majority of the members of the deputation of unemployed persons yesterday were Greeks. Most of them have had hardly a day’s work since they came to our shores. Only last Friday, I visited the waterfront in Melbourne when the ship “ Patris “ came in with another load of Greek migrants. Some of them had to go immediately to members of the Greek community for aid for themselves and their families.

There is yet another aspect of the need for co-ordination between the Department of Trade and the Treasury - co-ordination with immigration policy. We on this side of the House say that this country ought to be great enough to provide work for both old and new Australians. But the bringing of new Australians to this country is criminal and wrong when many of the old and new Australians that we already have are out of work and have been unemployed for considerable periods. Continued immigration in these circumstances can serve only to cause tensions. For these reasons, we have raised this issue of unemployment in the motor industry to-day.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has said, the motor car industry is one of the main manufacturing industries in Australia, and we have to look to manufacturing in the future to provide the main share of the 100,000 additional jobs every year. But what do we find at present? At the end of .August, there were something like 120,000 fewer people in employment than twelve months ago, despite the fact that the potential labour force has increased by more than 100,000 persons. These figures provide a rough index of the degree of unemployment and of under employment. It does not run at the level of 120,000, as the official figures show, when we take into account the loss of part-time employment and the other concealed factors that are not revealed by the statistics. When those considerations are taken into account, the real level of under employment must be nearer to 250,000 persons. Now another 8,000 in one industry alone are to become unemployed. What does the unemployment of 8,000 workers, even for just one week, mean? On the basis of an average wage of £20 a week, it means that £160,000 less will be circulating among the shops and the other business establishments throughout the community. The effect of this reduced circulation of money as a result of unemployment in this one industry alone is magnified over the whole economy.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wight:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP

– Mr. Deputy Speaker, one would have thought that, in initiating this debate, the Opposition would have stated not only its policies but also the means by which it hoped to achieve its objectives. However, it has not even stated a policy. It has merely presented alleged criticism of the Government for what the Government has done. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) made no worth-while comment on the Government’s actions; nor did he make any useful contribution to this discussion. True, he tried, again, to introduce a personal element with reference to myself, but I shall ignore that. He said not one word that constituted a practical contribution concerning what ought to be done.

The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns), who now wishes to explain a very complicated question asked by him this morning, which, frankly, was not logical or readily understandable, made it clear, I think, that his remedy is to examine the tariff first and then to reduce it in order to promote greater competition. Whether or not he meant to say it, that is what he said. He clearly implied that his remedy was to wipe out the Australian industry by removing the tariff.

Despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) is zealously trying to hide the Australian Labour Party’s origins and intentions, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) made it clear that his remedy is to socialize the motor industry. What the honorable member wants is planning, Sir. He says that planning has to be practical, although we all know of the ordeals of planning under former Labour governments, and particularly under the socialist government in the United Kingdom in the early post-war years. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports wants full-scale planning to be practicable. He does not want “ planning “ to be regarded as a dirty word. So, we see the means by which the Labour Party hopes to attain an objective that it has not even told us exists. It wants planning and socialization. It proposes a reduction of tariffs in order to promote greater competition in industries established in Australia.

May I mention but two factors. Implicit in the proposal for discussion submitted by the Opposition is an inquiry about what the Government’s intentions for the future of the industry are. Secondly, the Opposition has asked why we do not do something to promote exports. I think that the answer to that question is to be found in the Government’s stated objectives. If you consider them, you will find that they are the continued growth and development of Australian industry. We accept the fact that the labour force will probably increase to about 5,700,000 by 1970 and that manufacturing industry will have to absorb a substantial proportion of the additional workers. Our policy has been clearly stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and by the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) in these words -

Within this policy there has been and will be no change in the constant objective to insure that manufacturing industry grows rapidly and strongly.

That remains our objective and within it we think that the motor vehicle industry must play an important part. But have we achieved our objective? The figures relating to the production of motor vehicles - sedans, coupes, tourers, roadsters and utilities - since the Menzies Government has been in office show the practical realization of its policy and its objectives. In 1938-39, the monthly average production was about 5,000 vehicles; in 1953-54, it was 7,600 vehicles; in 1959-60, it was 15,000 vehicles and in November, 1960, production was 20,000 vehicles of the kinds I have mentioned. There we see not only the policy but also the working out of it. Can any one say it has not been successful, particularly when we remember the words of the Minister for Trade, who said that about 90 to 95 per cent, of vehicles and components are now being produced or assembled in this country? There has been an enormous change over the years which, I think, illustrates what the Government’s policy is.

As to the future I cannot add anything to what has been said or repeated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). He read out the answer which I gave to a question on 12th September, 1961, and for my part that adequately sets out what the Government’s policy is. We will have an expanding economy; we will have an expanding population. And within that growth it is for the motor industry itself to determine what its commercial prospects are and how many vehicles it should produce to sell in a commercial market. I add nothing to that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly showed that the Opposition misunderstands the very nature of the measures taken by the Government in November because, as my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has pointed out, the objective of our policy in the particular case of the motor industry was to ensure that the number of vehicles produced was in fact reduced, for the very good reason that we thought the motor industry had got out of balance with productive capacity and the use of man-power in this country.

We can get a very good estimate ot whether too many vehicles are being produced, and we were convinced that the numbers being produced were greatly in excess of the number which could in fact be sold. When we look at the figures of production and of registrations month by month we see that the numbers produced were grossly in excess of the numbers actually sold and registered. In 1960, 12,000 vehicles more than could be sold were produced and in the March quarter of this year the figure was something of the order of 5,000. We regard this as an important industry. The objective of the Government therefore was to make certain that it fitted into the production schedule of a balanced economy. We thought the industry was producing too many vehicles and action was taken to see that the numbers were in fact reduced and that the surplus man-power was transferred from this industry to others. Here we find also that there has been success in diverting people from one industry to what can be regarded as more essential industries. We can look at the transfer of people to transport and communications, where there has been an increase in employment of 6,000, to public authorities where the increase has been 3,200, and also to education where the increase has been 6,900. So I could go through the list and prove that to-day we have a much better balanced working force than we had in November, 1960. That proves the case of the Government - the growth of industry and production within Australia, the diversion of people and resources to other industries and, I believe, a better balanced economy to-day than we had last year.

The second question relates to the problem of exports and imports. My colleague, the Treasurer, pointed out during November that two of the purposes of our November measures were to reduce the inflow of imports insofar as they related to the automotive industry, and to increase our exports. He pointed out that there had been a very substantial increase in the flow of imports relating to the automotive industry, from something of the rate of £156,000,000 to well over £200,000,000 per annum. He pointed out that as there was a bigger demand internally for motor vehicles our prospects of exporting would be very remote and that we could expect that, unless there was a change, our exports would fall. What has happened? The Minister for Trade has already made it clear, in answer to a question by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that the total exports of completed motor vehicles during the year ended 30th June last amounted to £8,700,000.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– -Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr. Hasluck) agreed to - That the business of the day be called on.

page 1194

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1961

In committee: Consideration resumed from 13th September (vide page 1173).

Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Proposed new clause.

Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted in the bill: - “ 2a. Section twenty-one of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (b) of subsection (1.) the words ‘ twenty years ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ ten years

It is in order to assist newcomers to Australia, migrants who have played such a tremendous part in the development of this country, and to prevent them suffering unnecessary hardship on reaching retiring age, that I have moved this amendment. I may explain that the effect of the amendment, if carried by the committee, will be that the residential qualification for the age pension will be reduced from twenty years to ten years. This is a matter of burning importance to new Australians, to migrants who have arrived in this country since the war. A number of them who are now beginning to approach the retiring age are deeply concerned at the fact that they will be unable to provide for themselves in their later years. They are most anxious that the Parliament should give them the right to apply for the age pension at a much earlier period. From all the inquiries I have been able to make I have ascertained that there is only one country in the world, except Australia, which makes the residential qualification twenty years. That country is New Zealand. In all the other countries in respect of which I have been able to obtain the figures the period of the residential qualification is much less.

We who have received such great advantages from the arrival of the immigrants should now reconsider our residential qualification and do them the justice of enabling them to apply for the age pension after they have given ten years of effort and work to this country.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I propose to rule that the proposed amendment is not in order because its effect would be to increase the appropriation required under the bill.

Mr Bryant:

– By how much?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amount is not in consideration.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. I point out that no amount was mentioned in the message recommending appropriation for this bill. Social services are financed from the National Welfare Fund. Section 5 of the National Welfare Fund Act states particularly that there is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly for the purposes of the National Welfare Fund in each financial year, an amount equal to the amount of money paid out to the National Welfare Fund in the financial year. So the thing is equated. Whatever expenditure we agree upon is the amount that will be paid out of the National Welfare Fund. There can be no assurance that the adoption of the proposed amendment will increase the amount of expenditure during the current financial year. That is only a matter of surmise. Before you could be sure that it would increase the amount of expenditure during the current financial year, you would have to be certain that there are migrants who have been in this country for more than ten years and less than twenty years and who would, in the year 1961-62, reach the age of 65 years. You would also have to be sure that-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! With respect to the arguments put forward by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, the fact remains that the intention of the amendment is to increase expenditure. Otherwise there would be no value in the amendment. It is obvious that it would increase the number of people eligible for social service benefits and this, in turn, would increase expenditure on social services. I now rule that the proposed amendment is out of order.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I accept the ruling of the Chair with very much regret because of the tremendous importance of this matter to immigrants who have arrived in Australia since the war.

You have given your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I must accept it. But we would have been able to discuss this matter and we would have been able to make the provision that the amendment seeks if the Government had chosen to put this amendment into the biD. It is only because the Government has deliberately refused to put this amendment into the bill that the committee, under the Chairman’s ruling, is prevented; from doing this measure of justice to the immigrants who have become good citizens of this country, and who have performed many services for it in the years since the war. To illustrate the tremendous importance of this matter and the great benefits which Australia has received from the contribution of the immigrant work force to the national development of this country-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I must now rule that the honorable member for EdenMonaro is out of order in discussing matters relating to the amendment which I have ruled to be out of order. These matters are beyond the scope of discussion at the committee stage of the bill.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I accept your ruling.

Mr Hasluck:

– May I speak to the ruling?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The ruling has been accepted..

Mr Hasluck:

– Yes - but may I say something, Mr. Chairman?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you want to canvass the ruling?

Mr Hasluck:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I call the Minister.

Mr Hasluck:

– As you have given a ruling of far-reaching importance to practice in committees of the House, Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to have the ruling put in writing in a suitable form? I accept the ruling and respect the argument behind it, but it seems to me that it will seriously limit the capacity of any committee of this House to amend money bills. If it can be shown on any occasion that expenditure will be increased as a result of a proposed amendment, the amendment will be ruled out of order. The fact that the powers of a committee will be limited in this way seems to me t& be a matter that deserves fuller consideration. Consequently, I ask that your ruling be reduced to writing, although I do not challenge the ruling in any way.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will look at the matter and see whether the Minister’s suggestion can be followed.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. In the very limited time which the Minister has left to me-

Mr O’Connor:

– Mr. Chairman, I understand that you gave an undertaking to the Minister to place your ruling in writing?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I gave an undertaking that I would look at the suggestion made by the Minister and see what could be done in that regard.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Perhaps 1 would be in order, while discussing this bill as a whole in committee, in dealing with the very important question of the ability of this country to finance social services. The increase in our population since the war has reduced the average age of the Australian population and has greatly increased the work force, thus enabling us to finance an increased social services programme. Since the end of the war, up to June, 1961, 1,720,000 new arrivals have entered Australia. Departures have numbered 503,000 so there has been an excess of arrivals over departures of 1,217,000. The important point in respect of social services-

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- I understand that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) has requested, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling that the proposed amendment is out of order be put in writing for consideration by the Government. I think that that is a valuable suggestion. If members are unable to move for the amendment of certain bills in committee, they will be put in a difficult position. They may be prevented from stressing the importance of particular matters related to bills under consideration. I see the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Stokes) nodding assent. I represent an electorate which, I think, has probably the largest number of immigrants in Australia. Hundreds of men are reaching the age of 65 years and hundreds of women are reaching the age of 60 years. Acute distress is being occasioned because they cannot qualify for the age pension. The position is deplorable.

I have raised this question twice in the life of this Parliament. I think that the more recent occasion was on the 16th of last month, the day after this sessional period began, when I directed the attention of the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) to the need for the alleviation of the position by reducing the qualifying period of residence. But still the Government does nothing about it. Surely it is ironical that although the Government has been made aware of the plight of ageing immigrants and had an opportunity to make provision for them in framing its Budget, it has failed to take the opportunity provided by the presentation of this amending legislation to reduce the qualifying period for pensions from twenty to ten years or some other lesser period. Now, when we want to amend the bill and to obtain an expression of opinion of members on our proposal to give relief to these people, we have a ruling which prevents us from achieving that objective. My friend, the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), very rightly pointed out that this ruling that we could not move an amendment because it would increase the appropriation does not apply because there is no appropriation in the terms of a fixed amount of money. It could so happen, Mr. Chairman, that in certain circumstances–

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honorable member should keep to the clauses of the bill.

Mr POLLARD:

– Let me finish this little point, because it is rather interesting.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have allowed the honorable member for Lalor to develop the point so far because of the comment made by the Minister, but 1 remind him that the bill before the committee at the present moment is the Social

Services Bill, not the ruling or the comment made by the Minister.

Mr POLLARD:

– I will keep off the ruling as far as I can, Mr. Chairman. May I put it in this way: If this concession is granted by the Government - and it is still not too late to grant it, because an amendment could be moved in the Senate - there may be no actual increase in the expenditure over the Budget provision because, as a result of any one or more of a variety of factors, the expected number of people for which the Government has provided may not eventuate this year, and therefore the amount of expenditure required may not exceed the amount that the Government expects will be required. All other classes of expenditure on social services may prove to be substantially less than expected by the Government, and in those circumstances the Opposition’s move to reduce the qualifying period of twenty years to ten years–

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I remind the honorable member again that the matter which he is discussing does not come within the clauses of the bill before the committee, and I ask him, therefore, to relate his remarks to those clauses. The subjectmatter to which he is referring is not before the committee.

Mr POLLARD:

– Then, Mr. Chairman, I move -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must put his dissent in writing. (Mr. Pollard having submitted his objection to the ruling in writing) -

Question put -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 33

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– I must take this opportunity to correct an impression which an attempt was made to create that there is discrimination against migrants in the administration of the Social Services Act.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. Mr. Chairman, you have just given a ruling, which has been upheld by the committee, that it is not valid to discuss at this stage the matter of residential qualifications of migrants following the Government’s failure to make provision for this matter in the bill. I submit that the Minister, in his opening remarks, announced his intention of dealing with this question by saying that he proposed to remove from the minds of honorable members the impression that there was any discrimination against migrants. That is a clear intention to discuss the very matter which you have ruled out of order. I respectfully submit that you should not allow the Minister to proceed along those lines.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is necessary for the Chair to learn what the Minister intends to say before making a ruling. I remind the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that two Opposition speakers were given the opportunity to inform me and the committee of how far they intended to go before they were called to order. I suggest that the same opportunity be given to the Minister for Social Services.

Mr Pollard:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. You have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that out of the kindness of your heart you allowed two speakers on this side of the chamber to engage in some argument or discussion about the ruling that you had applied. It is true that you did that, but I suggest that it is perfectly obvious, from looking at the Minister for Social Services, that he feels in his innermost heart that your ruling was an unfortunate one and that-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Lalor is now canvassing a decision of the Chair. He is also imputing certain things to the Chair. I remind him that the Chair must at least hear a speaker to a certain point before it can decide whether the speaker is out of order. The two Opposition speakers were allowed to continue to a certain point not out of the kindness of the heart of the Chairman of Committees, but so that the Chairman of Committees could form an opinion on what was being said. I suggest the same position applies to the Minister for Social Services.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank you for your ruling. I recognize that you did treat us with fairness and generosity in this respect and I would not like to shut the Minister out in any way from having a full opportunity to state his case in the time that remains to him.

Mr ROBERTON:

-I should like to address myself for a few moments to the general question of residential qualifications. It is wrong to attempt to create the impression that there is discrimination against migrants. Every Australian man must be 65 years of age and every Australian woman must be 60 years of age before qualifying for an age pension–

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I must again rise to order. The Minister is now grinning all over his face because he knows that he is proceeding directly to discuss a matter which you, Mr. Chairman, decided after due consideration we should not be allowed to discuss.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance in the point of order. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro cannot assume in advance what the Minister for Social Services will say. Order! The time allotted for the committee stage has now expired.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Roberton) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In addressing myself to the motion for the third reading of this bill I shall point to the faults and defects which it still contains. First, it contains no provision whatever to reduce the residential qualification for the age pension and thereby shuts out from this social service benefit a very large number of people who have come to us from continental Europe in the years since the war.

Mr Hasluck:

– It does not shut out Australians.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, it does not shut out Australians. They have already lived here for twenty years.

Mr Roberton:

– If they have not lived here for twenty years they are disqualified in exactly the same way as are the migrants.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. The people who will be shut out are the migrants from continental Europe. The bill does not shut out any person from the United Kingdom because that person is covered by the reciprocal agreement between that country and Australia. The bill does not shut out any person from New Zealand because that person is covered also by the reciprocal agreement between that country and Australia. Obviously the Government has considered this matter and for some reason has decided to shut out the migrants from continental Europe from the right to this valuable and important social service.

Mr Roberton:

– That is not so.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister states that it is not so, but the evidence that he and the Government have considered this matter is contained in the speech that he made last night to the effect that the cost of reducing the residential qualification from twenty years to ten years would be £2,500,000. Obviously, therefore, the Government has considered this matter and for the sake of £2,500,000- a mere fraction of the amount that is paid in taxes by migrants every year - has decided deliberately to refuse the migrants this substantial measure of justice, this right which is enjoyed by their fellow Australians, and from which migrants alone will be shut out.

Mr Hasluck:

– This is a vote-catching stunt.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister declares this to be a stunt. I invite the opinion of every new Australian as to whether the proposal to grant them this measure of social service justice is a stunt. The Minister’s interjection is a clear indication of the way in which he regards the rights of new Australians.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wight:

– Order! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro is not strictly in order in referring at this stage of the debate to matters which are not contained in the bill. According to the Standing Orders, the purpose of a third-reading debate is to review a bill in its final form after consideration by the Committee of the Whole. Debate on the motion for the third reading of a bill is confined strictly to the contents of the bill, and may not wander afield as sometimes happens at the second-reading stage.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was about to point out that under this measure British citizens from Malta, unlike other British citizens, will be excluded from the age pension.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s line of argument is completely out of order. He may review the contents of the bill, but he may not refer to what he believes the bill should have contained.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest to you that that is exactly what I am doing. I am examining the contents of this bill, and I point out that Government members have themselves expressed their earnest desire that there should be a provision of this kind in the bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I insist that the honorable member obey my ruling. If he continues along those lines I shall have no alternative but to ask him to resume his seat so that I may call another honorable member.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move-

That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no ruling from which you can move dissent. You can move that you be further heard.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have not ruled me out of order?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have ruled that you cannot continue along those lines that you have been following.

Mr Whitlam:

– You can only acclaim the bill at this stage.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest that it would be a wrong limitation of the rights of honorable members if on the motion for the third reading we were entitled only to acclaim the bill, as the Deputy Leader of the Disposition (Mr. Whitlam) suggests. I hope you will not rule me out of order when I point out that to us this is a vital matter.

Mr Roberton:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) is deliberately obstructing the proceedings of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point raised by the honorable gentleman.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask that the Minister be requested to withdraw the statement, which I very much resent, that I am deliberately obstructing the business of this House. That is a very serious reflection on my conduct as a member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no need to request a withdrawal. The remark is not offensive. The honorable member may continue.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am astonished, at any rate, that the Minister would make such an accusation against me.

Mr Hasluck:

– He knows you well. That is why he made it.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have frequently noted, in the past, that members were compelled to withdraw such a reflection as that. This bill - and I now deal with the clauses contained in it - is inadequate in very many respects. The provision which it makes for the aged, for the ill, the unemployed and the mothers in this country is far less than is their due. In most cases, the amounts provided are far below those which are warranted when regard is had to the prices ruling to-day. I again take the opportunity of pointing out that the Government has failed to make any provision whatever in the bill for an increase in the rates of child endowment. I trust that the Parliament, after the approaching election, will take the very earliest opportunity to remove the defects in this bill, to which I have directed attention, and that one of the first things that will be done in the new Parliament by a Labour government will be the introduction of a measure containing the social service policy adopted by the Australian Labour Party as announced to the public.

Mr Aston:

– Which party will adopt it?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It has already been announced, and it has been adopted. I hope that the first thing introduced will be a measure containing, first, provision for an adequate rate of child endowment, and secondly, provision for reduction of the residential qualification for the age pension from twenty years to ten years.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- We must be realistic when dealing with this bill. We know that the people will not put Labour in office when Labour has such a programme for expenditure on social services. Even the pensioners want security.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Mallee is not addressing himself to the clauses of the bill in conformity with your earlier ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I uphold the point raised by the honorable member for Wills. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. The question is, “That the bill be now read a third time”.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1200

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Dr. Donald Cameron) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) speaking without limitation of time on the motion to print the ministerial statement on Berlin.

page 1200

BERLIN

Debate resumed from 7th September (vide page 1012), on motion by Mr. Davidson -

That the following paper: -

Berlin - Ministerial Statement. 7th September, 1961- be printed.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:

Before the debate commences, I remind honorable members that yesterday the House agreed to consider together the two statements of the Prime Minister, the first on Berlin and the second on Nuclear Tests.

Mr MAKIN:
Bonython

.- On 7th September, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a statement to the House on the subject of Berlin and the situations arising therefrom. At the conclusion of the statement, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) moved that the paper be printed. It is on this matter I wish to speak at this stage.

I do not think that honorable members and members of the Australian community will disagree with me when I say that Australia and every other nation has a vital interest in the situation that besets the world over Berlin. This is not a matter for the Big Four alone; we are all immediately involved in the consequences. It is disturbing to find that after almost a decade and a half the Allied nations that triumphed in the campaigns of war are so tardy in meeting the challenge of the peace. As early as the year after the act of surrender by Germany, I discerned the great chasm that existed in the relations of the victorious countries, especially the relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Western powers - the United States of America, Great Britain and France. This was at the United Nations Assembly, held in London, in 1946, when I was brought face to face with the first and immediate issues between those powers when they appeared before the Security Council. I realized that all effort at negotiation would prove a long and tedious task. Later, when I was the Australian Ambassador to the United States of America, and attended the United Nations gatherings at Lake Success and Flushing, I again had the duty of presiding over the Security Council. The view I formed on the relationships between the nations at the London conference was doubly confirmed. There seem to be insurmountable barriers, though men of peace should never despair of reaching agreement. It is in that spirit men negotiate to attempt to reconcile what seems to be the irreconcilable. This is certainly the time for cool heads and clear thinking.

Before going on to say what needs to be said about the Berlin situation, let me refer to some of the characteristics of those who are important in resolving world affairs. The almost invariable attitude of those who represent the Soviet view is rarely to concede good faith to others with whom they disagree. They use the accusing finger; they believe constantly in the idea of attack; and they are ever suspicious. The United States appears to me inclined in its diplomacy to be precipitous to a degree. The desire at the time of which I have spoken seemed to be to register a decision by numbers. This certainly appeared of more concern than did the actual securing of a settlement. The most stable and sober was the approach of the United Kingdom, and it seemed to me that this was the kind of attitude that would secure world accord.

Let me again refer to the attitude of the Soviet delegation. Its representatives attacked the governments of the West regardless of political belief. At the London conference, the principal attack by these people was made on the British Labour Government led by the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee. The Soviet was responsible for three of the four charges alleging breaches of the peace. In each of these three charges, the British Labour Government was held by the Soviet Government to be responsible. It was not difficult for Mr. Ernest Bevin, who was the Foreign Minister, to justify to the Security Council the attitude of the United Kingdom to these charges relating to its actions in Greece, Lebanon and Syria. But these attacks were made by the Soviet as a diversionary action to draw attention away from the charge that had been made earlier of its own subversive activities in Teheran and Iran.

There we have the picture of the methods and characteristics of certain of the principals in the present world situation. The reconciling of their views is not a light or an easy task. We should recognize the wisdom of having these matters referred to the great world authority, the United Nations, for it is there alone that the world can register its opinions on them. Berlin at this moment comes more prominently into a review of world affairs than any other matter. We would be naive indeed if we imagined that with a settlement of the Berlin affair we would create a cosmos in world affairs. One aspect against which I protest is that inexcusable mistakes have been made at peace conferences when territorial boundaries have been fixed. There was the blundering folly of what occurred at

Versailles over the Polish corridor, and at this later time we have the division of Berlin and of Germany in this way. I recognize that Berlin as a former capital of Germany would be regarded as a principal centre in that country when determining surrender as well as final peace treaty matters. But why did we agree to its partition in a way that has been responsible for the present disputations? There is no doubt that the corridor, either land or air, will be a continuing challenge. Berlin should not have been divided at all, but should have been administered by a joint control body comprising all the Allied powers. It then would have become a matter of collective responsibility.

It may be desirable for me to refer to the history of the matter. Under the agreement between the Allies in London on 14th November, 1944, confirmed at Yalta on 12th February, 1945 - that was before Potsdam - and embodied again in an agreement on 5th June, 1945, American and British troops withdrew from Thuringia, Saxony, Mecklenburg and the Province of Saxony to the present dermarcation line and in return took over the sectors reserved for them in Berlin. Let us be realistic and appreciate the fact that this kind of patching and repairing will have to go on for many years. The suggestion of the Prime Minister of Canada that the whole of Berlin be made an international city and subject to United Nations control is worthy of consideration.

I have carefully perused the various documents giving information concerning the difficulties that have arisen in connexion with the Berlin situation. One of them is in the form of a communication from the Federal Republic of Germany - in other words, West Germany - to the Premier of the Soviet Union, Mr. Khrushcnev. It is dated May, 1957. There is also a communication from the Western Powers, the United States of America, Britain and France, and the West German Government, to the Government of the Soviet Union, on the question of the re-unification of Germany. It stresses the importance of at least some partial agreement on disarmament to all European countries. In addition to those documents, there is a reply from Mr. Khrushchev.

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to read these documents in full, but what emerges from them is that all the governments concerned, including that of the Soviet Union, agree that re-unification, in principle, is desirable. What is in issue is the method of achieving it. The Western Powers suggest that an election be held, at which the people of both East and West Germany should vote, and that a government should be elected to represent the whole of the German nation, and that with that government a peace treaty should be concluded. This, surely, is what the Germans themselves would want, and it is certainly in accordance with the Universal Charter of Human Rights. The relative portion of the charter is article 21 (3), which says -

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

I emphasize the word “ universal “.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, is insistent that the only way in which the matter can be dealt with is by having the two governments of the German Democratic Republic and of West Germany, confer and negotiate a basis for reunification. However, as was pointed out by the West German Government, this would merely provide an opportunity for either of the parties to exercise the veto against any proposal put forward. I feel that observers of world affairs could not conclude that the course suggested by the Soviet Union would result in any agreement on a satisfactory basis for reunification. Only this week we have seen an example of the way in which discussions between the Western Powers and the Soviet Un ion become protracted and finally lapse without a conclusion being reached. The disarmament conference that has been in progress in Geneva for more than three years has been discontinued. The report that was issued says that the conference is being discontinued for an indefinite period. It would seem that the Soviet Union is anxious to retain the status quo. It states it will sign an agreement with the Government of East Germany, and it appears to be hopeful that the declaration of Berlin as a free city would result in the ultimate absorption of West Berlin into the East German State.

I cannot feel that the Soviet really wants the present division between East and West Germany to be eliminated, because the present arrangement allows Soviet influence to spread directly as far west into Europe as the border that is now drawn between East and West Germany. Re-unification would mean that the frontier would be moved back to the borders of Poland and Czechoslovakia, because with a united Germany there would seem to be little hope for the exercise of strong Communist authority in the newly established nations.

It is obviously very difficult to find a clear way out of the present impasse, and I believe the only competent body capable of giving a direction in such a situation is the United Nations. A summit meeting has been suggested, and discussions are in progress at this very moment of a proposal for a personal meeting between President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev. While I would not say one word to discourage a meeting between these two leaders, I do not feel confident that a reasonable, immediate and helpful solution of world problems would result from such a meeting.

It may be somewhat reassuring, however, if I tell the House something about two of the principal advisers who would assist at any such negotiations. I know these two gentlemen particularly well. One is Mr. Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State for the United States of America, and the other is Mr. Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Union Foreign Minister. I have implicit faith in Mr. Dean Rusk for fair and honest dealing. He is a man of great ability and high integrity. Mr. Gromyko is a likeable person when you get to know him. He is dour and his personality is not easy to penetrate. He was Soviet Ambassador for some years in Washington and London, and he speaks English fluently. He should have a ready appreciation of the Western mind and of the. earnestness of the appeals that are made. I believe that each of these men will wish to contribute something to world peace and security. Let us hope that these aspirations will not prove to be unfounded.

Finally, let me say that it is the people of the world who will have to suffer the consequence of any failure to arrive at a satisfactory solution. It is for this reason that I again emphasize the urgent need to bring this matter before the one world authority capable of giving some guidance at this time. After all, no nation, no matter how powerful, can afford to ignore world opinion. History has proved this conclusively. I know that the problem of nuclear weapons, and the regrettable resumption of tests of such weapons, are matters of major concern, but time does not permit us to discuss these things adequately. I merely say most emphatically that it is a matter of grave concern that any nation should again embark on this frightening exercise. 1 have sought to concentrate upon the happenings responsible for the Parliament embarking upon this debate, and I trust that my remarks will enable the House to make a better assessment of the difficulties involved in these matters of international concern. I have purposely refrained from making a bitter and hate-filled statement, for that surely is to be deprecated at a time like this. Wisdom will be nurtured by the restraint of men and of the nations they speak for and represent. It is the cause of humanity that we commend to these international leaders, and we hope for discretion and earnest endeavour in all of the negotiations that spell for our world a bright and better future or, if they fail, its tragic doom. I cannot believe that any man of responsibility in high office would risk having the blood of the peoples of this world on his hands.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Mr. Speaker, this debate was initiated by two statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). Those statements were welcomed by this House and the Australian people, and by an audience wider than the Australian people, as both factual and firm. The right honorable gentleman has not only set before us an account of detailed happenings which we may well study and consider. He has also given to us firm leadership in dealing with the situation which now confronts us. That situation is simply a continuation of the world situation which has existed since 1945 because of the plot by Communist Russia to take over the whole of the world. This is history. This is the dominating fact of history in the sixteen years which lie immediately behind us. At the present time, we face two new chapters in this story - one concerned with Berlin and one concerned with the resumption of tests of nuclear weapons. These two matters are linked.

There is no doubt that Russia’s attitude on Berlin is related to its attitude on the resumption of tests of nuclear weapons. I hope to try, in a moment, to analyse that relationship. But the dominating need is for us to realize - and I think that this is where the honorable member for Bonython (Mr. Makin), with all his good intentions and eloquence, did not face up to the facts - that Russia, throughout, is acting in bad faith. There is nothing to give us cause to believe that the Russian hierarchy - I do not speak of the Russian people - is actuated by any spirit of sincerity, honesty or decency, or by a wish to further the good of the world. It is actuated only by an insane desire to drive the Communist system forward. To appease this attitude and to treat is as just humanistic and reasonable is worse than useless.

We do wrong if we evaluate as simply an incident in itself each one of these incidents that occur, or if we approach each incident in the belief that by negotiating reasonably about it we can come out on top or prevent the Russians from furthering their overall aims. If we adopt this approach, without reference to Russia’s main design, we must continue to fail. I do not apologize for using those words. Although one can be mistaken from time to time, or confused about the direction in which history is moving at this moment or that moment, yet if one looks at it in the perspective of the last fifteen years or so one cannot be mistaken: We are not winning at present. The reason for this, I think, is epitomized very largely in the mistake which the attitude of the honorable member for Bonython evidenced - the mistake of going into negotiations on each of these matters on the naive assumption that the Russians are concerned only with whichever incident happens to be before us at the moment. We do not see that the Russians are concerned all the time with a major, overall plan and that they quite unscrupulously develop any incident - whether it be related to nuclear tests, to Berlin or to something else - in order to further that overall plan. If we consider each incident only as something to be negotiated about on its own merits, as we have done too often in the past, we shall be beaten by the Russians in the long run.

I agree with the honorable member for Bonython, of course, that it is a good thing for this matter to be referred to the United Nations. But I do not think that it should stop there. One of the great difficulties about the United Nations is that it should be not only a mobilizer of world opinion. It should be, also, a focus of world action, but it does not. I hope that when this matter goes before the United Nations it will not simply be made an excuse for further Russian delaying tactics. I hope that some use will be made of the undoubted facts, and of the justice of the situation as it exists.

I do not propose at this stage to say much about Berlin. I had an opportunity, three weeks ago, of discussing in this House some aspects of the Berlin situation. I do not withdraw any of the words that I used at that time. Indeed, I re-emphasize them. There is no doubt - the Prime Minister’s remarks put this quite beyond doubt - that, legally, the Russians are in the wrong over Berlin and that, morally, their attitude on Berlin has outraged every canon of decency. These things stand as undoubted facts. It is not our fault that Berlin is divided. That is the fault of the Russians. We wanted, in accordance with the agreements originally entered into, to keep the unified control of Berlin. The Russians, deliberately and of set purpose, made this impossible. I think it was a good thing that the honorable member for Bonython appealed to the facts of history. From the weakness of Yalta, the failure of the Potsdam agreements and the vacillation over Berlin in 1948 and 1949, the record of history has been a sorry one which we may well regard.

I pass now from Berlin to something which is perhaps even more in our minds - the resumption by Russia of tests of atomic weapons. The Russian performance in resuming such tests is an extraordinary one, because it runs counter to all Russian professions to date. It highlights the bad faith of the Russians. We know how the Communists in all countries under Russian control have been agitating for many years about the dangers of tests of nuclear weapons, and endeavouring to create a climate of opinion opposed to them. Now. suddenly, Russia throws over the whole of its propaganda machine. I ask in passing: Where are the peace movements to-day? Members of the peace movements fall into two groups. First, there are included in such movements a number of people who are well-intentioned, earnest and sincere; and secondly, there are in them Communist factions. The present action by Russia provides a good means of distinguishing between the two, for those who were earnest and sincere will now be protesting against Russia’s action and those who were in the peace movements as Communist agents will now remain silent and will not condemn Russia for what she has done. This provides, as indeed August, 1939. provided, a good means of separating the sheep from the goats. It will be remembered that in August, 1939, Russia, which had been leading the anti-Nazi propoganda, suddenly turned around and signed a treaty of alliance and friendship with Hitler. It was a complete switch. That provided a good point where those who were grouped as anti-Nazis could be divided into two groups - those who were sincere and those who went with Russia.

We know, for example, that most of the present leaders of the Australian Communist Party - one could speak of them by name and by rote - including, for example, a man like Wright, who was elected recently to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, showed themselves traitors at that time, because when Russia signed her alliance with Hitler they set about sabotaging our war effort in Australia. It was a good kind of test as to who was sincere and who was not. That is what we are getting now, because the present Communist Party in Australia is led by people who were loyal to Russia at the time when she went into her alliance with Hitler against Britain and Australia and against the interests of the free world. Do not let us forget who they were. Here we have another situation where the same kind of thing is possible. I know there are many well-intentioned people in the peace movement, but in it there are also a number of Communist Russian stooges. The well-intentioned people will now be out protesting against what Russia has done - something which Communist stooges do not do. This provides a means of finding out who is who.

There is no doubt that the Russian atomic or nuclear tests have as their partial motive the obtaining of new scientific knowledge and the perfecting and testing of new weapons, but I do not think this can possibly be considered to be the sole reason for them. When you look at the nature of the tests you see that they have been deliberately designed as an exercise in terror. In support of that statement I will cite four considerations.

First, there was the timing of the tests to coincide with the Belgrade meeting of the neutralist powers. That must have been a deliberate choice. The tests were taken at a time when the neutralist powers were together and the terror could be most effectively applied.

Secondly, there was the fact that the tests - without exception, I believe - have been conducted in the air and not underground. If Russia had merely wanted to test nuclear devices it would have been quite possible for her to conduct underground tests and this would not have released into the air any radioactivity at all. The tests would not have been attended with the same publicity. But these tests were deliberately carried out in such a way as to arouse the psychology of terror.

The third fact which I cite is that the tests were carried out immediately after the announcement of Russia’s intention to re-commence tests, and, therefore, had been prepared long in advance. This was a premeditated evil plan and not something which suddenly happened on the spur of the moment. It was premeditated and done with a maximum terror factor behind it.

Fourthly, I cite the conducting of the tests as being linked with Mr. Khrushchev’s statement about the 100- megaton bomb and the projected missile tests in the Pacific.

These four factors taken together show quite clearly, I think, that we are not just dealing with the testing of new weapons but with a terror campaign deliberately loosed upon us for psychological reasons. I think it is important that we should fit this into the general picture. I shall not have time this afternoon to elaborate on this aspect of the question. But just as in the past Russia has pretended to be in favour of atomic disarmament or any kind of disarmament, while at the same time she has sabotaged every attempt in the United Nations and elsewhere to get effective disarmament, so she seems now to be continuing that same policy with the same sinister motives. I believe Russia is still playing a delaying game. I believe that Russia is still endeavouring in the United Nations and elsewhere to put off a decision and to pretend to be in favour of these things. She is pretending to come out sanctimoniously in support of them while actually and in fact all the time she is doing everything she can to sabotage the attempts of the rest of the world to get together and arrive at a state of peace and prosperity which all of us, including the honorable member for Bonython (Mr. Makin), hope for. I do not for one moment differ from him in his objectives or ideals. I only think he has not realized the way in which the Russians are sabotaging so many men of goodwill who want this kind of thing. There is a curious parallel between the open flouting and contempt of world opinion by Russia at this moment and the flouting of world opinion by Mr. Khrushchev at the United Nations at the end of last year. I would almost think that Mr. Khrushchev’s behaviour there might be considered as a small-scale test tube experiment for the kind of thing which is being done now on a bigger scale to world opinion by the injection of this deliberate terror factor into Russia’s testing programme.

However you interpret it - and this is how I would end now that my time is up - we have now reached a watershed in history. There was a watershed in August, 1939, when Russia dropped her anti-Hitler mask and became openly pro-Hitler. That was a watershed, and this is the next watershed. Russia has, for her own purposes, dropped her mask of humanity in regard to Berlin and nuclear testing - for these things are linked - and has passed over the dividing range and put herself and the world from now on in a new phase of history.

Mr COSTA:
Banks

.- I wish to join in this important discussion on the Berlin crisis and atom bomb testing. It is sixteen years since the end of World War

  1. and this particular crisis is still with us. In September, 1944, a protocol was signed between the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Russia and France, to control Berlin pending a peace settlement. Two conditions of the protocol were the unconditional surrender of Germany and unrestricted movement of transport between all four sectors of Berlin. The unconditional surrender was a correct decision and penalty. Germany deserved the harshest of penalties as punishment for the great and horrible offences she had committed against mankind during World War II. and in World War I. No atrocities had been too ghastly for Germany to commit. The punishment that it has endured and which it is enduring is well deserved,

Unfortunately, the four nations who as allies halted and overpowered this tyrant enemy during the war are now in conflict themselves. It appears to me that the powers which were for good in 1945 are now powers for evil. The four powers have fallen out. They are at extreme loggerheads. They have great differences of opinion and it is difficult for the ordinary people to understand their reasoning. I would like to know what has become of the good intentions which these four powers had when they signed the protocol. Why can they not restore their good intentions and attitudes of 1945? I suppose that we could mention a number of reasons. The four nations in conflict over Germany consist, of course, of human beings, and unfortunately, humans suffer from weaknesses such as bigotry, intolerance, selfishness, egotism, discrimination. I think that some of these human characteristics are reflected in the unsettled conditions in Germany today. I find myself right on the side of the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru. I think he is a great man and a great leader. Speaking at Belgrade at the meeting of the 25 uncommitted nations which was mentioned by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), he made the following statement in which I think there is a great truth: -

I am amazed and surprised that rigid and proud attitudes are taken up by great countries. They are too high and mighty to negotiate for peace. T submit that this is not a right attitude. It is not their pride which is involved. It is the future of the human race.

I well remember what happened at the United Nations General Assembly last year when crises were looming in many places around the world. Besides the Berlin problem, we had crises in the Congo, Cuba, Algeria, Laos and Korea. Last but not least we had the great menace of weaponry - nuclear weapons. The same great leader, Mr. Nehru, together with President Tito of Yugoslavia, President Soekarno of Indonesia, President Nasser of the United Arab Republic, and Dr. Nkruma, Prime Minister of Ghana, who have just met together at Belgrade, sponsored a resolution at the United Nations. The resolution had for its purpose the bringing together of Prime Minister Khrushchev of Russia and President Eisenhower of the United States of America to see whether, by working together, they could find some common ground to ease world tension and to eliminate the great threat to humanity posed by the continual bickering between them. Mr. Nehru and these other leaders believed that the avoidance of a third world war lay within the power of these two great leaders of nations. But both found comparatively frivolous reasons for not meeting. President Eisenhower used the shooting down of a U-2 plane for which he wanted an apology before he would meet Mr. Khruschev, and Mr. Khrushchev wanted an apology because the plane had flown over Russian territory. In view of the great needs of world peace, these were very frivolous reasons. What the two leaders had in view was their own narrow-minded prestige.

The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in his Budget speech did not refer to these big world problems - the planning of peace, the banning of hydrogen bombs and disarmament. But these must be taken into account. No one in the world to-day wants war and the Australian Government should say that the Australian people do not want war. Stressing the economic side of life is important but it is never as important as disarmament which really means peace. Nuclear bombs with their poisons such as strontium 90 are a terrible scourge - too terrible to think about. They will harm coming generations because of their effect on human organs. I am not underestimating the importance of economic affairs. The distress of the Government over our economic affairs is understandable but I think that the greatest threat at the moment is the menace of weaponry.

Producing weapons as a deterrent, to intimidate, or for propaganda purposes is a terrible thing. I agree with the honorable member for Mackellar that it has all arisen out of the Berlin issue. The United States and Russia are the main warlike agents in the world to-day. But there are other countries that produce atomic weapons. I refer to Britain, France and Israel. I mention these nations because they are responsible for imperilling the very existence of the human race. I think that if just one of the main warlike agents were to begin acting in such a way as to further peace - not merely to praise it - the threat which nuclear weapons pose to mankind would be lessened far out of proportion to the initial gesture to peace. I say this because that gesture would finally reverse the horrible trend of the arms race.

I attended the General Assembly of the United Nations last year. One hundred nations were represented there and I heard peace being praised by the leaders of every nation, including those who possessed the knowledge to produce atomic weapons and those who did not. The clarion call of all was, “ We want peace “. Yet the only agenda item that could bring world peace - disarmament - was not finalized and remains for further attention at the next session. Last year the big powers spent about fifty billion pounds on armaments. It is difficult for the ordinary person even to realize just how much that is. Speaker after speaker at the United Nations condemned the big powers for spending so much money in this way while millions of people in the underdeveloped parts of the world are under-fed, under-clothed and under-nourished. It is reckoned that at least two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry every night.

Let me refer again to the great menace of weaponry. For breaking the moratorium on hydrogen and atomic bomb testing, Russia deserves the condemnation of the people of every nation. It was a complete contradiction of the flowery peace-praising speech given by Mr. Khrushchev at the United Nations last year. I join with all those who protest. President Tito of Yugoslavia made excuses for Khrushchev at the Belgrade conference. I think that his action in resuming bomb-testing is inexcusable. I should like to quote what world leaders said in the way of peacepraising at the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Khrushchev said

In the year in which you and I are living only the blind will not see the way in which the belief in the necessity of preserving peace is ever more definitely and plainly taking root in the minds of the majority of nations.

He continued -

The peoples of all countries - the workers, the peasants, the intellectuals and a part of the bourgeoisie - want peace and peace alone, excepting for a handful of militarists and monopolists.

He added -

It is precisely in the name of the victory of the cause of peace and tranquility, for the sake of service to the cause of peace and the security of the nations, that the United Nations was created.

Further he said -

We would like to hope that the decisions that will be worked out by this session of the United Nations’ General Assembly will bring us all closer to the achievement of the goal of all mankind - peace and justice.

And now he is dropping bombs! Now let us see what President Eisenhower had to say. He said -

We of the United States will join with you in making a mounting effort to build the structure of true peace - a peace in which all peoples may progress constantly to higher levels of human achievement. The means are at hand. We have but to use them with a wisdom and’ energy worthy of our cause. I commend this great task to your hearts, to your minds, and to your willing hands. Let us go forward together, leaving none behind.

Then we had Mr. Macmillan praising peace when speaking at the time of the breakdown of the Paris summit conference, which was to deal with peace proposals and disarmament. He said -

There is no purpose now in recrimination. But the peoples of the world who are deeply disappointed at that failure expect us to overcome the setback and in due course start again. It was the hope of President Eisenhower and President de Gaulle that the setback would be temporary, lt was a hope which I belie le was also shared by Mr. Khrushchev.

The three Western statesmen issued on the night of the Paris meeting a declaration from which I should like to quote. It said -

They remain unshaken in their conviction that all outstanding international questions should be settled not by use of force or threat of force but by peaceful negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, could there possibly be more profound statements in praise of peace than those that I have just quoted? When I heard those speeches, parts of which I have quoted, at the beginning of the United Nations General Assembly meeting I was inspired and made to feel very hopeful for the future of mankind - but only to have my hopes dashed to the ground at the end of the General Assembly’s session, when the consideration of the practical means of achieving world peace - disarmament - was stood over sine die.

It is completely wrong to make Berlin the battleground of the cold war. If bomb testing had only a psychological effect it would not be so attrocious as it is. It is effects of the explosions on health that are the worst aspect. We all know of the terrible danger that radio-active fallout holds for human life. I think that everybody will agree with the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America in their protests to Russia about the resumption of bomb tests by the Soviet in contravention of the 1958 Geneva Agreement. In their protests those governments asked Russia to cease bomb testing, and asked that the Soviet comply with the request by last Saturday. We know that Russia refused the request and is still testing bombs. My regret is that the United States of America announced its intention to resume the testing of bombs before the time for compliance with the request to Russia had expired. I believe that that was a tactical blunder. Now we have the spectacle of both these nations racing ahead to see who can make the biggest and most destructive weapons. Two wrongs do not make a right, and in that regard both countries should be condemned. I am looking forward to the time when moral power and not bomb power will be regarded as the greatest force for good on earth. Both Russia and the United States of America could achieve this happy state of affairs if they changed their hearts and minds as Mr. Eisenhower suggested should be done.

I am not without hope. People are fast turning against nations which gained their title of great because of their bomb power and weapon power. The balance of power is turning against the war mongers and the forces of evil. At the United Nations last year the sensible and moderate elements were the Afro-Asian nations. Extreme resolutions coming from the Russian bloc were amended by those moderating forces. There are fourteen Asian nations and 28 African nations which are now members of the United Nations. They hold the balance of power. I think that when Berlin and the re-unification of Germany are dealt with at the United Nations, as I hope they will be, these uncommitted nations, with Nehru leading, will take firm action against the four big powers for failing, after sixteen years, to settle the German re-unification problem satisfactorily. I agree with the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Diefenbaker, that the four big powers should withdraw from Berlin and that Berlin should be placed in the hands of United Nations forces. The United Nations forces have succeeded in other spheres of conflict. United Nations forces are succeeding in the Congo. There are still problems there, but the United Nations forces are winning out, and I believe they would meet with success in Germany. That is the only way.

Again let me emphasize the menace of weaponry. The nations exploding and testing poisonous bombs are committing a crime against humanity, and stand condemned by every right-thinking citizen in every nation.

Mr MACKINNON:
Corangamite

– I am sure that members on both sides of the House appreciate the opportunity presented by the Prime Minister’s two statements to the Parliament on nuclear tests and Berlin to express their thoughts generally on the world situation - but particularly on the two very contentious subjects with which the Prime Minister’s statements dealt.

I was interested in the remarks of the honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa) regarding world peace. I think we should clearly realize just what one half of the political globe means by the term “ peace “. In the opinion of the countries of the Communist bloc peace is a political condition throughout the world in which no opposition to Communist control is possible. That is completely different from the kind of peace which we visualize, in which a contented, industrious, and prosperous world will live in close harmony and association under the political systems that the people of the various countries freely choose for themselves.

I think that one of the most dangerous things going on in the world to-day is the success of the Soviet peace propaganda, which has insinuated itself into our own body politic and attracted many people of goodwill, who either will not try to understand what “ peace “ means to those who are propagating it from the Soviet, or who have shut their eyes to world conditions.

I propose to confine my remarks mainly to the subject of Berlin, which is obviously a constant threat to world peace. It could also be described as the running sore of international politics. The Berlin problem is, of course, important to the world to-day. To the great industrious people of the German Reich Berlin is the symbol of their own national importance. It is their national capital, in theory at least, and I believe it to be the wish of every person in the populations of both the Federal German Republic and the German Democratic Republic, that those two republics should be unified with Berlin as their capital, as would be evident if the people were able to express their will freely. That is the first significant point about Berlin.

In the second place, Berlin at present represents tremendous prestige for the Western system of economy and government. It is a place where a thriving, prosperous and happy population of some 2,000,000 people is showing to the other side of the iron curtain what can be done under the Western economic system. Of course, this prestige factor is not confined to Berlin. It has ramifications throughout the world. While West Berlin remains to the unfortunate people of the German Democratic Republic as an example of prosperity, it will always remain a place of tremendous envy to those people who wish to escape from Communist tyranny and enjoy the prosperity that exists under the Western system. The third and most important fact is that until recently when the border between East and West Germany was closed by the forces of the German Democratic Republic, it was the only escape route for those people who wished to get away from the Soviet-enforced German Communist tyranny.

I do not think we shall gain anything by going over the events of the past. It would not be of much advantage or benefit to honorable members or to the people of Australia to conduct a post-mortem on the mistakes that were made by the allied powers immediately prior to and after the cessation of the Second World War. I refer to the conferences that were held at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. I think that the theory which was advanced by that great statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, when he presented the proposition that the invasion of Europe should also be made through what he described as the soft under-belly of Europe, thus sealing off from the influence of Soviet expansion a large portion of what was considered to be the non-Slavic area of Europe, should have been adopted. Possibly one of the greatest strategic mistakes of the period was made when the proposition was rejected by those controlling the Allied strategy.

We have made too many assumptions about the attitude of the Soviet to the rest of the world, particularly in that twilight period of the Second World War and the period of reconstruction immediately afterwards. Generally, we were inclined to think that because the Soviet was fighting a common enemy it was an ally of the Western powers. We have continued to ignore the many examples of the doctrine of Communist world expansion which are so freely and so readily available. Any one who studies the writings of people such as Marx, Lenin and Stalin relating to the political expansion of Russia will learn that this policy has never been denied. But it was completely ignored, possibly being overlooked in the sense of relief which followed the defeat of the Nazi Reich after a prolonged and bitter struggle.

Another unfortunate assumption was that after the occupation of Germany agreement between the four powers would be not only a matter of just signing a treaty but also would be something carried into effect with general goodwill and understanding on the part of all signatories. That agreement was aimed basically at the ultimate readmission of a reconstructed German nation into comity with the other nations of the world. The London agreement of September, 1944, was the first substantial agreement relating to the future of Berlin. By this agreement Berlin was to be divided into four sectors and, as mentioned by the honorable member for Banks, it provided that there would be free and complete access between the various sectors of Berlin. In addition, there was to be freedom of trade and access into Berlin itself. Unfortunately, this possibly was a basis for subsequent Soviet action. The three Western powers in 1948, in conjunction with the Benelux countries, had discussions relating to future allied policy on West Germany and Berlin. These discussions gave Russia the excuse she needed - at least that was the excuse she used - to break away from the Allied Control Council which had been set up by the 1944 treaty because she felt that she had been excluded from the discussions.

Then in 1947-48 a new currency was introduced into West Berlin. This created a very serious problem for the people controlling the Russian sector. The blockade of 1948-49 which followed gave indications of a threat of continuing indefinitely. This has been the case. Virtually the real problem of Berlin as a whole is the question of access. Unfortunately, the Soviet and the German Democratic Republic are in a particularly strong position to control the whole of Berlin. It is obvious that if another blockade is imposed - whether on land, on the canal system or on the air corridor - the Western powers will have to break it. As I see it, that is where the danger lies. Are we to accept the blockade with the obvious difficulties that it involves, or are we to state unequivocally that a blockade is completely outside the agreements that have been made and that it is the responsibility of the Western powers to maintain freedom of access to West Berlin irrespective of the actions of the German Democratic Republic reinforced by Soviet pressure? In my opinion the whole difficulty in relation to Berlin lies in the immediate problem of access.

In general terms Russia’s obvious objective is to put the effective control of the whole of Berlin in the hands of the East

German Republic. The enforcement of a blockade would make that a complete and natural corollary of that objective. The West cannot hand over 2,000,000 people to Communist rule and Communist tyranny. We cannot even treat them as being expendable. The Soviet believes that world opinion will follow -the .recent slogan that has been coined in England, “ Better red than dead “. I believe that the Soviet is playing a game of bluff on Berlin. The Soviet believes that the “West will be forced by public opinion, fear of war and the dangers that go with brinkmanship, if i may use the word, to make concessions which ultimately will lead to the surrender of the position that we now are trying to maintain. We have only to consider the attitude of individuals to this matter. Does the steelworker in Pittsburg worry about events in Laos? Does the clerk working in Glasgow worry about the immediate problems of the citizens of Berlin?

That brings me to my next point to which the “honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) referred. He stated that one of the strengths of overall Russian strategy and propaganda has been its ability to hide from ordinary Western thinking the fact that there is an ‘overall plan which the Soviet is striving to achieve. By concentration on individual points, such as Berlin and other trouble spots of the world, at one time or another, the Soviet is diverting the mind of the rest of the world from what it is really attempting to achieve in accordance with its overall plan. The Soviet isolates each incident. She makes an advance, hesitates, applies pressure in another direction and then stops for a while. It is all part of the plan. Until the world realizes the importance of that plan and the way in which the Soviet is gradually extending its influence throughout the world, the cause of democracy will fail. I mentioned before the importance of this question of access. When talking of access, we must look at what will happen if Russia goes ahead with her announced policy of signing a separate peace treaty with the German Democratic Republic. If she does, the West is faced immediately with the problem that, instead of dealing with the Soviet on these matters, it will be dealing with the German Democratic Republic That will involve the question of some form of de facto recognition of the German Democratic “Republic.

Such a step would mean that, instead of working towards a re-unified Germany, we would be giving, in effect, separate forms of recognition.

It is also very clear that a system of freely-conducted elections throughout the whole area would bring about a result which would be completely distasteful from the Soviet point of view. The vast population in West Germany, working under the democratic system, would obviously have a tremendous influence but, apart from that, if the people of the German Democratic Republic had the opportunity of voting at freely-conducted elections, it seems almost certain that they would reject the Soviet system and would rather be united with their brothers in a Western Germany. That is the thing that the Soviet fears. That would be the greatest threat to their own prestige in the eyes of the world, particularly in the eyes of nearby European countries such as Czechoslovakia and others. Therefore, Russia cannot allow that situation to develop. She realizes that to counter it she must try to bolster up the German Democratic Republic and keep the Communist Party in control there so that this situation will not develop. What the attitude of the German Democratic Republic will be on access to West Germany still remains an enigma. Nobody in this House or anywhere else can foretell at the moment whether the officials of the German Democratic Republic would be any more difficult or any easier to deal with than the present Soviet authorities. My own view, for what it is worth, is that quite possibly, with certain encouragement and certain inducements there could develop a situation in which East Germany would be more malleable and more tractable than the Soviet, except that while some 20 divisions of Soviet forces remain within the area the Germany Democratic Republic might fear that any step in a particular direction would meet with complete disapproval from the Soviet itself.

Another point I should like to mention is that the development of West Germany has been so spectacular under the democratic system, its resurgence has been so dramatic, that this cannot fail to have tremendous influence on the people of East Germany, who are living in deplorable economic conditions. That country was milked white of its industrial resources immediately after its surrender, when the Soviet forces came in and removed everything of value from the area. As a result, the opportunities for rebuilding the economy have been very small and completely ineffective. But the people of the two Germanys are one people and obviously they would like to get together. Despite the enforcement of Communist control, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, given some economic inducement such as a promise of a better standard of living for the East Germans, a situation could come about which could change the attitude of these people towards the occupation forces of the Soviet and, in the long run, bring about the desirable result of a freely united German republic. I feel that that is one hope for the future in the present almost impossible situation. If that could be achieved, I believe that the world would be far happier about a situation which now presents great difficulties.

I come now to the nuclear explosions that were recently conducted by the Soviet. I agree with the Prime Minister’s opinion that these tests were a complete example of the cynicism of the Soviet towards world opinion. He suggested - and I think it is quite possible - that after the Russians have conducted their series of explosions, they will immediately say to the rest of the powers of the world, “ No more testing of nuclear bombs “, and so, having achieved their own results, will seek to take from everybody else the opportunity to conduct similar tests. As one of my colleagues reminds me, it is quite likely that, in the atmosphere of the world to-day, the other powers will agree. There have been seven nuclear explosions now by the Soviet, and I repeat that this action is typical of the cynicism with which the Soviet authorities approach world peace and the world problems of reconciliation which press so heavily upon us to-day.

I do not think anybody could disregard the seriousness of the Berlin situation. On the surface, it seems insoluble. Geographically, it can be described only in one way -as a mess. But I believe that, provided time is given, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a solution will be worked out.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Mackinnon) filled me with some - certainly it is little more than faint - hope of reasonableness coming from the Government side. We on this side are not concerned so much with the merits of the debate one way or the other. Little that we say or can do here will shift Khrushchev or Kennedy from their positions one iota. But I have hopes that by the sentiments we express here - 1 believe that we express the sentiments of a great number of Australians - we may force honorable members on the Government side to take up a less difficult attitude, a less doctrinaire attitude, than has been espoused so far, especially by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth).

The rights and wrongs of the position as the honorable member for Mackellar sees it are open to debate. We do not propose to debate them. We are not on either side. We are for humanity itself. I was born on 3rd August, 1914, and my earliest distinct memory is of armistice day at the conclusion of the war with Germany in which some 60,000 Australians lost their lives. The final six formative years of my life in my twenties were spent in the pursuit of Germans and others who were involved somehow or other in a conflict with us. What was it all about? So far as I am concerned, not one drop of Australian blood should be spilt over Berlin. The 300 square miles of the Berlin area are not worth one drop of Australian blood. But the 2,250,000 German people are worth a lot of consideration and that is where I thought the reasonableness of the argument adduced by the honorable member for Corangamite came to the fore. I listened with interest to my friend the honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa), who had the exhilarating experience of being present at the discussions of the United Nations General Assembly last year. I listened attentively to his account of what Eisenhower said and what Khrushchev said on that occasion, both speaking so glibly, so eloquently and so persuasively about peace. What have they done since then? They have gone their own ways, and their least concern seems to be consideration of ways of arriving at a solution. The honorable member for Banks also said that we are dealing with men.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Do you really equate Kennedy with Khrushchev, as you seem to do?

Mr BRYANT:

– The honorable member for Wannon may be able to read as well as talk; he may even be able to listen. I am pointing out that the words they used are almost identical. As a sort of interpolation at this stage of my address, I shall give an instance of the words that were used. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said - the Western nations will never be the aggressors. . . .

These are the words of Mr. Khrushchev or one of his spokesmen -

The Soviet government solemnly declares that the armed forces of the U.S.S.R. will never be the first to resort to arms.

There should be a lot of hope in that statement. The Prime Minister of Australia and Mr. Khrushchev stand side by side in their expressions of opinion. Honorable members opposite may say that the words of the Prime Minister should carry more weight with us. Indeed, they do. We can watch him in action; the Kremlin is not under such close scrutiny. That, I will be prepared to admit.

The facts of this life are that the Prime Minister of Australia has associated himself with every piece of belligerency of the Western powers during the last twelve years. His whole history has been to associate himself with these acts; but I believe the Australian people want the Government to dissociate itself from the belligerencies of the past and start to speak for the sake of the people. Honorable members opposite, and even the honorable member for Corangamite, have been guilty of a rather illogical attitude. The honorable member for Corangamite spoke of the 2,250,000 Germans in Berlin. Every one of them, he said, was a human being; they were perhaps the brothers, sisters and cousins of people who are welcomed in this country when they migrate. But last year, with all the pressure in the world, we could not get the slightest sign of sympathy or understanding for the 10,000,000 people of South Africa, whose fate and hardship caused despair to all humanity. This is where the position of the Government is prejudiced. This is what is wrong with the position in which the Government has put us. On every possible occasion we can dredge out of the past, and sometimes out of the very recent past, instances that show the Government does not pursue any consistent course in world affairs. If the 2,250,000 people of Berlin mean anything to Australia, the 10,000,000 people of South Africa and the millions of people of Angola and of other parts of the world must also mean something to Australia.

We believe that Australia’s role in the world to-day should be that of a nation offering goodwill and its good offices to do what the honorable member for Bonython (Mr. Makin) has advised us to do. Honorable members opposite should learn some lessons from his experiences. He was the chairman of the Security Council when the Soviet Union first used the veto. He sat side by side with the Russians and saw them as men. Just after he had finished his speech this afternoon, he said to me, “ I found in the great disputes that came before the Security Council during my chairmanship and membership of it, that as long as you were patient and showed that you had the goodwill to reach a conclusion, eventually a conclusion would be reached “. That is the experience of a man who knows. It is the experience of a great Australian and a man who has occupied positions that will be denied to most of us. He is a man of great humanity and understanding, a man who spoke from his heart and from his personal experience.

But the attitude adopted by the Government is contrary to that of the Opposition. Honorable members opposite speak in abstractions and use legalities and similar arguments to buttress a weak case. I believe that I speak for most Australians when I say that we have had enough of wars, that this question must be resolved without bloodshed. It will be difficult to do so, and, as the honorable member for Corangamite said, any satisfactory conclusion will take a long time to reach. However, 1 do believe that the technical re-unification of Germany and all the rest of it, about which honorable members opposite argue, have little at all to do with us. What is wrong with the German people that they cannot find a solution to their problem? Again the honorable member for Corangamite, I think adopted a reasonable attitude. Is it not logical to believe that we could perhaps negotiate more effectively with 17,000,000 East Germans than with 200,000,000 Russians? Is it not possible that we might arrive at a satisfactory agreement in that way and so resolve the difficulties? That seems to me to be a reasonable viewpoint. There is no need to move into a position from which it is impossible to retreat because one nation wants to sign a peace treaty with the people of East Germany.

I am intrigued by the similarity of the arguments that are advanced by the leaders on both sides. I believe that those leaders, as the honorable member for Banks said, stand on points of pride when it finally comes to a showdown and forget that they are dealing with points about people. These are the arguments that have been advanced.

Mr Killen:

– Their language has a different meaning.

Mr BRYANT:

– That may be so. The honorable member may be able to understand these matters better than I can. I merely look at the lessons of history, and one lesson is that we will not get anywhere by shooting people. In its note to the United Kingdom, in September of last year, the Soviet Union said -

  1. a question is broached which conies exclusively within the competence of the German Democratic Republic and can in no way serve as a subject of discussion by other States, since this would violate the sovereign rights of the German Democratic Republic.

I can recall the Prime Minister of Australia being very tender about the sovereign rights of other governments in this world. He used this argument with Suez and with South Africa. I have no doubt that the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Forbes), who has been interjecting, supported him in every instance. It is a legalistic argument. I do not know whether the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser), who is also interjecting, will grace this debate with his words of wisdom, or whether he intends to interject for the whole period of this discussion. As I said, these are legalistic arguments. The point I am making is that, if there is any hope in it, there is a brotherhood of man as shown by the similarities of argument that each produces. This is what Mr. Christian Herter said on 18th May, 1959-

Conversely, since the United States was never at war with the Federal Republic of Germany nor with the so-called German Democratic Republic, any “ Peace Treaty “ or definitive settlement with such portions of Germany, whether individually or collectively, could1 not be a final peace treaty with Germany.

He advanced legalistic arguments to show that the United States of America cannot deal with parts of Germany but can deal only with all of Germany. The Russians advanced legalistic arguments to show that they cannot deal with the whole of Germany but only with part of Germany. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) waves his head; it is significant that no sound comes forth.

These are points in dispute between two great nations, which are holding the whole world to ransom because of their temporary access of power. The 200,000,000 Americans and the 200,000,000 Russians comprise one-eighth of the world’s people, but the world is a changing place and they will not be able to hold it to ransom forever. Despite the disputes between these nations and their failure to come together and treat with each other as people for humanity’s sake, they will not be able to hold the world at bay for much longer. I believe that the last general session of the United Nations brought a change in the trend of history. The great leaders of the world realized that the forum of the world, the United Nations, was important to them. Thirty years ago they did not care much about what the people of the world said. But last year, the leader of Russia, the leader of the United States of America, Dr. Soekarno of Indonesia and Mr. Nehru of India met at the United Nations; and even the Prime Minister of Australia realized in the end that something was on and he went there, too. The forum of the world has become important in the decisions of world affairs. We must encourage this trend. We must find some solution that does not revolve around belligerencies. The Prime Minister of Australia said -

As to Australia, we shall of course continue to support the Western position in Berlin.

He will, and by what sanction does he announce this on behalf of 10,000,000 Australians? It is a piece of arrant doctrinaire nonsense to suggest that Berlin, a piece of territory 300 square miles in extent, is worth the destruction of the human race. I do not care what arguments may be produced from the other side of this House. I say that it would be better for us all to contribute towards the cost of removing every person in Berlin to some other spot, than to allow the inevitable alternative to take place. Strategically the position is untenable. As the honorable member for Barker should know, from his great military experience, if he supports a decision to fight over the Berlin question, he condemns the 2,250,000 people in that isolated situation to immediate destruction. Strategically and in every other way the position is untenable.

Let me suggest that this Government, representing Australia, which is one of the leaders among the groups of smaller powers in the world, should be stepping into the world arena and offering opinions of its own, not saying simply that it will support the Western view. What is the Western view? Is it the view of the President of the United States, or is it the view of Mr. Macmillan? Is it the view given by Mr. Macmillan, on the golf links, I understand, when he said, “There will be no war about Berlin; we will not fight about Berlin “? Or is it the view of the more intransigent members of the United States Government, who say that they will fight about Berlin? These are the questions, and they are unresolved. That is the basis of our disappointment. That is why we think, “ What chance have we got? “ And what hope have we got, with a Government which adopts uncritically the decisions arrived at by people who are in no way answerable to this nation? We want the Government of this country to speak in the councils of the nations as the Government of Australia. We do not want to be just another vote in Western power politics. There is no future in that for us.

I do not know why there has been this sudden dedication to German reunification. I hope I am giving the honorable member for Moreton plenty of material to stir his German-loving bosom. What is the reason behind this sudden concern for the re-unification of Germany? Why have some people suddenly become dedicated to the re-unification of nations? After all, they are the people who supported the division of Korea and the division of Viet Nam. They supported the division of the Indian sub-continent into the two nations of India and Pakistan. They will not even send a representative to Southern Ireland because of the danger of offending Northern Ireland. Partition has been almost a constituent part of diplomacy over the last two decades, but suddenly we find the Government insisting that Germany must be re-unified.

What ought we to do? First of all, we must find some immediate solution which will not involve bloodshed, and then we must look for some way in which the Germans themselves can resolve this question - the Germans of both East and West Germany. What is wrong with the Germans that they need so much care and love and attention from the Prime Minister and from the honorable member for Barker? What is wrong with this great nation that it is suddenly found that only the tender regard of the members of this Government for its welfare will solve the problems confronting it? This is a nation that less than a century ago became unified into a modern nation. Is this theory of the Third Reich mentioned by the honorable member for Mackellar going to be extended into another union with Austria? Of course not. The facts of history have to be accepted.

The members of this Government see only the shades and shadows of Potsdam and Yalta and accept the decisions made there as Holy Writ. They do not look back into history or into the future. This afternoon we are debating matters that have arisen as the result of decisions made at Potsdam and Yalta. The shades of Stalin and Roosevelt and the personality of Churchill permeate this debate to-day. We are debating not the dotted lines on a map; we are concerned with the results of decisions reached at those conferences.

I deeply regret - and I have taken steps in my official capacity to express my regret to the representatives of Russia in this country - the behaviour of Soviet Russia in recommencing tests of nuclear weapons. Despite all this sense of doctrine and all the rest of it, I say that the people mainly affected are Mr. Khruschchev’s grandchildren and Mr. Kennedy’s children, Ibn Saud’s wives and my wife and children. They are the people for whom we are concerned, and there must be no possibility that humanity will be plunged into war on account of the mystiques and doctrinaire approaches of honorable members on the other side of the House.

I believe the Prime Minister has let us down by his completely uncritical approach to foreign affairs. He went to the United Nations last year and became just another vote in power politics. On that occasion, I think he had four other votes with him. It is time for a critical analysis of world affairs. It is time for us to extend sentiments of goodwill and offer what help we can give towards solving international problems. These are not questions of estate, of prestige or of pride. The future lies with the United Nations. It lies, as the honorable member for Banks has said, with people such as Mr. Nehru.

In the debate this afternoon I hope that we on this side of the House have managed to show consistency in our approach to foreign affairs. To us, the world is populated by human beings. Germans who come here are welcome, as, indeed, are the representatives of Russia. We can solve our problems only by sitting round a table and working them out.

On this occasion we can challenge the inconsistency of people such as the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) who wants us to protest about the explosion of Russian nuclear bombs, as, indeed, I have protested, and as have other people like me. But what did the honorable member say about France? Where does France stand in the world to-day? Is it possible that France is the difficult partner amongst the Western powers in this Berlin crisis? What did the honorable member for Mackellar say about France’s testing of nuclear weapons? By the actions and the words of honorable members opposite one can judge them. They have been proved inconsistent in their approach. They adopt a completely uncritical attitude towards the Western viewpoint, particularly when it becomes belligerent. When it is belligerent and difficult they support the British. When it is more belligerent and more difficult they support the United States. The time has come for the people of this country to have representing them a government with some respect for its own people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wight:

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

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

.- It has been very interesting to listen to the remarks of the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) during the last few minutes. We all know that the honorable member is one of those who are completely immersed in peace movements. He has shown himself to be still immersed in the past by his remarks this afternoon about these spurious peace movements sponsored by Communists. The honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) remarked that it would be interesting to see what approach would be made by those honorable members who have been advocating the Communist version of peace. The honorable member said, “ This will separate the sheep from the goats “. I will leave it to honorable members to decide in which paddock they would put the honorable member for Wills.

We have heard an extraordinary speech from a member of this Parliament who is obviously a very prominent spokesman of the Australian Labour Party. Let me remind the people who listened to this debate over the air this afternoon that the honorable member for Wills is one of those who would make up the alternative government to the government that is now in power. The honorable member for Wills said he was born on 3rd August, 1914, and it is no wonder that the war started immediately afterwards. The amazing aspect of the honorable member’s speech was his reference >o the tens of thousands of lives that have been lost in the two great world wars since that time. If we followed the suggestions of the honorable member and ran away from the position in Berlin this would mean that the tens of thousands of lives that were lost in defending the liberty and freedom that we believe in would have been completely wasted. The sentiments that we have heard expressed by one of the prominent members of the Australian Labour Party on the Berlin question are most dangerous ones, as I think all honorable members will agree.

There is one point on which the honorable member for Wills and I reach some agreement. I believe there will be no war over Berlin, but I believe that this will be because we are prepared to fight to preserve Berlin. This is the only reason why there will be no war over Berlin.

As the honorable member for Bonython (Mr. Makin) said, all our troubles stem from Yalta. It was at Yalta conference that some extraordinary decisions were made for the future of Europe, the end of the war then being in sight. All our troubles at the present time stem from the ridiculous decisions made at that time. But of course we cannot put the clock back. We have to make the most of the situation as it now exists. As the honorable member for Mackellar has said, the position from the legalistic point of view is perfectly clear. There must be no giving way on Berlin. We have to stick to the plans which were agreed on by the four great powers in arriving at a decision on Germany.

I believe that we have to go back much farther than the honorable member for Bonython went. We have to go back much farther than the Yalta conference. We have to go back hundreds of years and follow the history of Europe up to the present time, because, as Santayana, the philosopher, has pointed out, if we do not learn from the mistakes of history we shall make the same mistakes again. We have to look at the history of the great German race - the great Teutonic race - which came from the northlands and which has been a force in Europe right from the beginning of its history. The Germans are a tremendously able, virile and vigorous people who have played a very important part in all aspects of Western civilization and Western life. We have learned that these people have a great destiny. They have contributed, unfortunately, to periods of great savagery and brutality in Europe. But also, to their credit, they have contributed much to the arts and to culture. I believe that by our attitude at two peace conferences we have contributed to a lot of the emotions which led to the two world wars, and particularly the last one. We remember the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, under the terms of which Germany was artificially divided. Parts of that country were given to Poland, which was re-established. The harshness of the Treaty Of Versailles produced the climate of opinion which gave Hitler the opportunity to plunge the world into another great war.

Poland had been partitioned by the great powers at the Congress of Vienna, at which Talleyrand, Napoleon’s great Foreign Minister, played so important a part. In his memoirs, Talleyrand wrote -

The Poles, although not forming a political entity, will always form a family. They may not have a common country, but they will have a common language. They will therefore remain united by the strongest and most lasting of all bonds.

How true was that prophecy. About 100 years later, after the end of the 1914-18 war, Poland again became united.

The position of Germany is very similar to that of Poland. One of the traditional territories of Germany has been taken by Russia and Poland. I refer to East Prussia, with its capital of Konigsberg, which was the seat of the Teutonic knights of ancient Europe. Many of the areas east of the Oder and Neisse rivers have traditional places in German history, and the sentiments mentioned by Talleyrand will continue to play their part and sow the seeds of further wars.

It is impossible to keep East Germany and West Germany apart. Their common heritage of language and tradition will always bring them together. Obviously, the four great powers intended that they be again united. But we have to consider one important fact: Soviet Russia fears a united Germany. Undoubtedly, that fear is the main cause of our present problems. At the same time, the partition of Germany presents one of the great weaknesses of the Soviet regime. It brings into stark relief the very marked contrast between conditions in territory on one side of a barbed-wire barrier and conditions on the other side. The advantages which the Western way of life has to offer are in sharp contrast with the misery and tyranny on the other side.

Obviously, Khrushchev cannot afford to allow that situation to continue, because this contrast highlights one of the principal problems of Soviet Russia itself - the contrast between life in the free world and life in Russia. Soon, the people of Russia, by degrees, will become informed of the way of life in the outside world. For this reason, I believe that time is on our side. Another war would be disastrous to the whole human race. No one knows that better than the Russians know it. I believe, therefore, that we shall avoid war if we remain firm in our intention to stay in Berlin and observe the agreement made by the four great powers when they entered into their contracts on the peace with Germany.

There have been many drastic changes in Soviet policy, of course. We have seen the great change that has occurred since Khrushchev came to power. There has been a move away from Stalinism which has shaken the whole of the Communist world. Before that, of course, there was the treaty between Stalin and Hitler in the early part of the Second World War, which was torn up when Hitler attacked Russia. Now we have just witnessed another tremendous change - the decision to explode nuclear bombs in further tests of such weapons. The honorable member for Mackellar and. I believe, to a degree, the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Mackinnon) suggest that this is a psychological move which is designed to bring terror to the world and thus enable the Russians to attain their own ends. Those honorable members may be right, but whether or not that is the purpose is not very clear. I think the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) and people like him would be interested in measures of that kind, but I do not think the British nation, particularly Australians, who have fought in two world wars, would tolerate them for one moment. There has been a tremendous change from the advocacy of a spurious peace, a veryexcellent discription of which was given by the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Mackinnon), to peace according to the Russian plan. We have had “Ban the bomb “ and all the other slogans which many well-meaning people support, including members of the Opposition. T refer to honorable members such as the member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) and the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns). It will be very interesting for members on this side of the House to see whether the honorable member for Yarra takes part in this debate, because we believe the honorable member is associated with sinister organizations^

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. The honorable member is now making serious imputations against the honorable member for Yarra. He has just said that Government supporters believe that the honorable member for Yarra is connected with sinister forces-

Mr Turnbull:

– He did not say “ forces “. He only said “ sinister “.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He said “sinister”, and would have said “forces” but I stopped him.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:

Order! The honorable member would not be in order in stopping the honorable member for McPherson. If the honorable member for McPherson has reflected on the honorable member for Yarra I ask him to withdraw the remark. I did not hear the words he used.

Mr BARNES:

– I withdraw. I was referring to associations and not to the honorable member personally. I was referring to associations which we believe are not in the best interests of Australia.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr. Speaker, this is just as bad. The honorable member says that the honorable member for Yarra is associated with organizations which are not in the best interests of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for McPherson is making fair comment.

Mr BARNES:

– It will be very interesting to see whether the Labour Party puts the honorable member for Yarra in thisdebate, because, if it does, he will be in an extremely difficult position. It will be most interesting to the thousands of Australians who are listening to the broadcast of these proceedings to realize that the honorable member’s colleagues constitute the alternative government of Australia.

I was referring to Russia’s exploding of nuclear bombs and her reasons for so doing. It is most remarkable that this should be done, and it is very difficult to see the motive for it. After all, the people of Communist China will suffer from the fall-out from bombs exploded in the atmosphere. They will probably fare worse than any other nation in the world, taking into account the wind drift in that area. The people of Japan will come in for their share of fall-out, and so on across the northern hemisphere. It will be a very difficult position, and I cannot imagine the people of China welcoming the explosion of these bombs. At the same time these explosions have alienated the goodwill of many neutral nations for Communist Russia. There will be no doubt in their minds to-day as to just what Russia is aiming at. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has made it perfectly clear that we in Australia are absolutely behind Great Britain and America in their negotiations over Berlin, because a firm stand over Berlin is the best means of avoiding war.

Debate (on motion of Mr. Duthie) adjourned.

page 1218

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 25); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 26); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 27); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 28); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 4); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 4)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 25).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 11th May, 1961; 15th August, 1961; 17th August, 1961; and 7th September, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 26).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely: - 11th May, 1961; 15th August, 1961; 17th August, 1961 ; and 7th September, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 27).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 11th May, 1961: 15thAugust, 1961; 17th August, 1961 : and 7th September, 1961.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 28).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 11th May, 1961; 15th August, 1961; 17th August, 1961; and 7th September, 1961.

[Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 4).]

  1. That the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representativeson the following date: - 17th August, 1961.

page 1225

THE SCHEDULE

After consecutive number 61 in column 1 and the particulars specified in columns 2 and 3 opposite to that consecutive number, insert the following consecutive number and particulars: - [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 4).] The tariff proposals which I have tabled relate to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1961, and the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1961. They will take effect tomorrow morning. In the main, Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 25 to 27 provide for alterations in duty on vinyl and vinylidene products, canned meats, and styli of the type used with sound reproducers; and they arise from consideration of Tariff Board recommendations on these goods. The Government has adopted the Tariff Board's recommendations as to vinyl and vinylidene products. Increased duties are proposed for vinyl acetate monomer, moulding compounds for gramophone records and polyvinyl chloride flexible film and sheet. An alternative fixed rate duty is introduced for polyvinyl chloride resin and the existing protective duties of POlY.vinylidene film and unsupported sheeting are being removed. In its report, the board recommended that protection be removed from liquid meat extracts and that a countervailing duty be imposed on imports of subsidized pigmeat. Proposal No. 27 provides for the removal of the existing protective duties on liquid meat extracts. The countervailing duties are being imposed by administrative action under the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1961. Turning to styli, the Government has accepted the Tariff Board's recommendation for the removal of the protective duties on diamond and sapphire tipped styli. The rates now proposed are free under the British preferential tariff and 7i per cent, most favoured nation. Following report by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board a temporary duty of £10 per ton on various writing and typewriting papers is imposed by Proposal No. 28. The normal protective needs of the local industry have been referred to the Tariff Board for full inquiry and report. The temporary duty will remain in force only until the Government has taken action on the final report of the board but, in any case, not longer than three months after the receipt of the report. In addition to the amendments arising from Tariff Board recommendations, there are several changes of an administrative nature concerning twine for fishing netting and rabbit netting, micrometers, and goods exported for repair or renovation by the original manufacturer. These do not involve any alteration in rates of duty on the goods. Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals No. 4 is complementary to Customs Tariff Proposals No. 25 in respect of seat covers for vehicles and ensures that the preferential rate of 30 per cent, on those goods, when of Canadian origin, will be continued. The amendment proposed by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals No. 4 will exempt from duty liquid meat extract when of New Zealand origin. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1226 {:#debate-34} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-34-0} #### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table of the House reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Canned pigmeats. Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921-1957, and meat and preparations of meat in airtight containers. > >Cellulose acetate flake. > >Styli for sound playback equipment. > >Synergists for pyrethrum-based insecticides. > >Textile labels, badges, and the like. > >Vinyl monomers. L also lay on the table of the House a report by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board on the question whether temporary duties should be imposed on fine paper. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 1226 {:#debate-35} ### CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1961 Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral's message): Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act 1956-1959, as amended by the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act 1961. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. Ordered - >That **Mr. Osborne** and **Dr. Donald** Cameron do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Bill presented by **Mr. Osborne,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. Under the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act 1956-61; a bounty at the rate of lOd. per lb. has been paid to the producer of cellulose acetate flake produced in Australia and sold for manufacture in Australia of cellulose acetate rayon yarn. Bounty payments have been limited to £142,000 in any -one year. Imported cellulose acetate flake is dutiable at 7i per cent, under the British preferential tariff and 12i per cent, under the most-favoured-nation tariff. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act so as to extend the period in which bounty may be paid on sales of flake from the date of introducing this legislation to 30th June, 1964. The bill also provides for a reduction in the rate of bounty and in the annual limitation of amount of bounty payable. In the Tariff Board report on the industry which 1 have already tabled, the board has recommended continued assistance by way of bounty. The board has found that costs of production have fallen since the board's last review of the industry. The board has recommended that the rate of bounty be reduced from lOd. to 7d. per lb. and that the annual limitation of total bounty payable be reduced from £142,000 to £90,000. The Government has accepted these recommendations. The board also recommended that the new bounty rate should apply for three years from 1st July 1961, and that a further review be made before this period expires. The report was not received in time to implement this recommendation from 1st July and it has been decided that the reduced rate of bounty will apply from to-day. C.S.R. Chemicals Proprietary Limited is the only applicant for bounty. The company produces flake at Rhodes in New South Wales. The flake is sold to Courtaulds (Australia) Limited for manufacture into rayon yarn at Tomago, in New South Wales. Bounty payments have been made to C.S.R. Chemicals Proprietary Limited in respect of flake sold during the year ended 30th June, 1956, amounting to £99,489, for 1957 amounting to £113,258, for 1958 amounting to £100,981, for 1959 amounting to £124,286, for 1960 amounting to £120,033, and for 1961 amounting to £113,396. The Government agrees with the view of the Tariff Board that the payment of a bounty is the appropriate method of assisting the production of flake in Australia. The imposition of increased duties would tend to increase costs of acetate yarn which would result in increases in the retail costs of garments. The bounty will operate on sales of flake to 30th June, 1964. The Government accepts the Tariff Board's recommendation that the industry be reviewed by the board prior to the expiration of the bounty period. I commend the bill to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Clyde** Cameron) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1227 {:#debate-36} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-36-0} #### BERLIN Debate resumed (vide page 1218). {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot .- For the last sixteen years Berlin has been the hot spot in the cold war. Millions of words have been spoken about it, millions of words have been written about it, and hundreds of hours have been occupied in debate about it. Scores of notes have been passed between Washington and Moscow about it. Berlin could -be described as a western island in an eastern sea. Let us look at some of Berlin's recent history. Berlin was the bulwark of Nazism. Berlin was the deathbed of Hitlerism. Berlin was the symbol of horror, terror, tragedy and death. Berlin was enslaved by fanatics in mass murder. Berlin was smashed by mass bombing during the latter stages of World War II. Berlin now is the tragic child of a shotgun marriage between Western expediency and Soviet intransigence. Berlin is the symbol of division and danger. Berlin is the symbol of a nation split asunder in ideology, culture, economics and politics like a family that is cut in two. Berlin is the cockpit of opposing., irreconcilable ideologies - the flashpoint of two mighty power groups. The solution of the Berlin crisis and of the problem of German unification, with one central democratically elected parliament, is as far off as ever after sixteen years. Berlin is the tragic place of unfinished business arising from World War II. The Western proposals have been stated and printed. They were presented to the Soviet Prime Minister in Geneva on 14th May, 1959. I shall give a brief outline of those proposals. They were - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Berlin is one city and belongs to Ger many. East and West Berlin should be united through free elections held under United Nations supervision, and would become the future capital of a reunited Germany. 1. Subject to the supreme authority of the four powers - the United States of America, Great Britain, France and the Soviet - with voting procedures as adopted by the allied authorities in Vienna, a freely elected Berlin council would be free to administer the city. 2. The freedom and integrity of the united city of Berlin, and access to Berlin, would be guaranteed by the four powers, which would continue to be entitled, as at present, to station troops in Berlin. 3. The four powers would initiate dis cussion of possible stage and controlled comprehensive disarmament measures. 4. A transitional period would be agreed upon with a mixed German committee. 5. This mixed committee would consist of 25 members from the Federal German Republic and ten members from the German Democratic Republic. 6. The committee would co-ordinate technical contact between the two Germanies, ensure free movement of persons, ideas and publications between the two Germanies, and guarantee basic human rights in both Germanies and free, secret general elections under independent supervision. 7. Thirty months was suggested as the period to expire before such general elections were held. This would be the transitional period. 8. The four powers would limit their armed forces to agreed maximum limits - United States of America 2,500,000, Russia 2,500,000. 9. A further progressive limitation of armaments would take place from time to time. 10. The installation of an inspection and control system to verify compliance with all agreed security measures. 11. No production of nuclear weapons in either of the two Germanies. 12. The final peace settlement to be con cluded only with a government representing all Germany. This last item is the rock on which I feel that all negotiations so far have crashed, and for this reason: The Western proposals are criticized by the Soviet because the Soviet wants a peace treaty between the two Germanys now, and not after the institution of a freely elected democratic parliament for the whole of Germany. In other words, the Russians want a peace treaty before German political unity is achieved. I cannot see a solution along those lines in the foreseeable future, for the following reasons: The Soviet is afraid to lose its influence over East Germany, and the Soviet is afraid to lose the material wealth of East Germany. The Soviet does not believe in free elections. There are no free elections in any of its territories in the sense in which we understand free elections. The Soviet does not believe in a multi-party system of government. The very essence of communism is the one-party system in which people have no choice, and no chance of changing their government. The Soviet got East Berlin as well as East Germany as a result of World War II., and therefore claims these as its territory and, because the ultimate purpose of the Russians is world domination, to lose direct influence over any one area of the world that they now control would be, to them, ignominous retreat. The Soviet Union is ruled by fear. The Soviet fears to pull out of East Germany because the Oder-Neisse line is the furthest west that Russia has ever extended its rule, and a united Germany would move the Soviet's western boundary several hundred miles to the east. Another reason why the Western proposals will not succeed is that there is still not enough trust and confidence on either side in this tremendous problem. Where there is no trust there is no foundation for a solution. Words mean different things to opposing ideologies. 1 think that we will have to find a common denominator in the form of an interpretation of the meanings of words before we can really get far with this proposal for the solution of the Berlin problem. I believe that unless both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the West can agree on complete disarmament within East and West Germany as a prelude to a united Germany the old game on the military chessboard will cloud and befog the main issue and keep suspicion and distrust viciously alive. Disarmament of the two Germanys would clear the air entirely, and would also clear the ground for the success of the Western proposals, a large part of which the Soviet has already agreed to. Nations have for so long believed that armaments mean strength that they are reluctant to disarm anywhere. We have not learned much from centuries of bloodshed. Strength is still largely synonymous with armed might, so we have the world armed to the teeth again to-day. Let me stress again that the ideologies of West and East differ so greatly that a solution to the Berlin crisis will continue to remain remote and difficult. Areas of agreement are so small that one fears that there is insufficient room in which to build a new nation. I believe that we have to try to enlarge the area of agreement between West and East over Berlin. It will be a long uphill haul. The Communists, by their resumption of nuclear tests, have outraged world opinion. Are these tests related to the Berlin problem? It is impossible to say for sure. We can all indulge in conjecture on this point. Of course, the self-styled anti-Communists on the other side of the House would say without hesitation that the tests are connected with Berlin, but it is impossible to be sure about that. However, looking at the matter as fairly as possible, and having regard to the fact that the tests have followed the recent Berlin crisis, there is a distinct suspicion that they hinge on the flare-up of the Berlin trouble. Could the Soviet possibly imagine that the testing of enormously powerful nuclear devices would bludgeon the Western world into any surrender of Berlin? The Soviet's action could be an attempt to produce a nuclear-manufactured fear in men's hearts. It is carrying the cold war beyond the economic sphere to frightening psychological warfare. The nation that presses the button to start the third world war will itself be destroyed in a terrible nuclear annihilation - the Armageddon of humanity. Even the leaders themselves, thank goodness, will be vulnerable in any future war. In past wars they were able to hide from the front line, but there will be no hiding in the third world war which will be fought with nuclear weapons. This may be a restraining influence on some of the world's hot-blooded leaders. It is a case of one world or no world. No one will win the next war. It is frightening to realize that the future of civilization rests in the hands and on the decisions of a few power-driven leaders. The round table is still the only sound, sane way to tackle a world crisis, whether at the summit level, the Foreign Ministers' level or the top level of the United Nations. I still believe that the United Nations is the sheet anchor for world sanity. The representative;, of the powers may argue as much as they like; they may bitterly oppose each other, but while they use only words and not bombs there is a hope that a solution of the world's problems will be found. The leaders must realize that the peoples of the earth want only security, freedom, peace and justice; and that includes the Russian people as well as the American, French, South African, Japanese and Australian. If a gallup poll were taken of the peoples of the earth to-day they would be 100 per cent, for peace, irrespective of their colour, ideology, race, class or religion. Yet we have the fantastic spectacle of the peace of the world resting in the hands of one or two men. To me, that is a terrible thing in this twentieth century. Gallup polls are taken on practically every other question except on this one. People follow blindly behind their leaders, and that is why in a democracy we have a great opportunity to keep our leaders up to the mark, to criticize them and to try to bring them down to earth and to sane levels of thinking when they tend to get out of touch. But where leaders have no contact with their people, are not elected by their people and have no responsibility to their people, that is where the danger lies. The masses of the world want security, peace, freedom, justice and housing; that is all. They would be quite satisfied to have those things. By security, I mean work and decent living conditions. Why do we have to spend so many billions of dollars, pounds, francs, and roubles preparing for war? This absolutely beggars the imagination and understanding of the ordinary man in the street. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- Yet governments have to cadge money to fight cancer. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- Yes, they have to cadge money to fight cancer and heart disease, as has been the case recently in Australia when canvassers have gone from house to house seeking money. If the Soviet would only open its boundaries, allow its own people to travel, allow an interchange of people and ideas - I do not mean only business people or parliamentarians - and a two-way traffic across its borders with people coming and going from east to west, the Russian people would obtain a tremendous advantage in the sense that they would better understand the countries and peoples of the world. They would not be learning only by reading what their own press has to say about us, about Great Britain or about France. They would be able to see for themselves the conditions that exist in other countries. The Russian people are human beings, just as we are, and I am sure they want the same things that we want. With this interchange of people and ideas we could build up a great moral force against conflict, against any thought of war and even against the testing of nuclear weapons. This would help to put pressure on the hot-headed leaders of the world to make them abandon armaments for good. We have armaments at present only to threaten our opponents, but the cost involved in providing them is fantastic. Expenditure on these armaments is wicked. Peace is not the absence of war; it is people and nations becoming different. Our leaders must be made to realize that the ultimate and real things in this world are not boundaries, not prestige, not armaments, not power, but the people - human beings. Human beings are the pawns in this gigantic international game of power politics. No government exists for any purpose other than to work for the good of its people, the welfare of its people, the happiness of its people and, before God, governments will be judged on their treatment of their people. Both West and East have said that they will not start a war. Perhaps that is very reassuring, but is that bald statement sufficient to ensure peace? Only complete disarmament will bring peace and security to the hearts of humanity and to the world itself. Nothing is sure, nothing is safe, while nuclear bombs exist in any country. Why cannot the leaders understand this and decide, as rational human beings, to be rid of armaments for good? They simply do not trust each other. As I stated earlier, without confidence and trust in each other we cannot secure a solution of the Berlin problem or peace in the world. Brinkmanship that we have heard so much about will always haunt the world while nuclear destruction remains a threat to any nation. Finally, I believe that in the international sense Australia must be a partner with the uncommitted nations of the world. They need us in their fight for world peace and sanity, and we need them. By creating this great moral uncommitted force throughout the world we may have some influence on the hot-blooded men who, for their own personal, nationalistic and racial reasons want to plunge the world into its Armageddon. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I want to begin what I have to say by directing the attention of the House to the speech that was made this afternoon by the honorable member fox Wills **(Mr. Bryant).** When he commenced his speech he used the plural pronoun " we " by which I presume that he was claiming to speak for his party and not just for himself. " We ", he said, " are not on either side ". Well, that is a remarkable confession for the Australian Labour Party to make. In other words, the honorable gentleman was saying that the Australian Labour Party can reconcile itself to the Communist point of view just as readily as it can reconcile itself to the point of view of the free world. The Labour Party would just as soon back the Communists in this issue as it would back the free world. The honorable member for Wills said " We are not on either side ". If those words do not mean what 1 have said, then they can only mean that the Labour Party is indifferent to the outcome. Then the honorable member went on to talk about people who use legality to buttress a weak case. What does he mean by " legality "? Is this some way of disparaging the legal position? Does he not realize that if a case does not rest on a basis of law it rests on nothing else but force? Does he not realize that this is exactly what the Russians have been saying? What they have been saying in effect is, " Never mind the legal position; we will settle this on the circumstances as they exist ". And the honorable member for Wills, speaking for the Labour Party, is quite willing to accept this point of view! He is quite willing to brush aside what he calls the legalities and to accept whatever the side opposed to us cares to offer. I must say this is a remarkable position for the Australian Labour Party to be in. I want to come back to this question of legality because, after all, the whole status and the whole of the arrangements in Berlin were made by agreement between the four powers. The rights of the four powers were defined in those agreements. They included, of course, the right to maintain garrisons. in Berlin and the right of free access to Berlin, and their validity is not abrogated by just one power walking out of the agreement and saying, " That is the end of it ". Of course not! One power withdrawing from it cannot put an end to the agreement. All rights, presence in Berlin, and arrangements, depend upon the agreement. To brush this aside and say, as the honorable member for Wills is saying, " Never mind about this, this is only a lot of legality ", is merely to acknowledge the naked rule of force. The first point I want to make is that Russia has absolutely no legal justification for her actions. Let us look at the course of events since these arrangements were made. Of course, I can only do this in outline because my time is short. The first thing the Soviet Government did was to consolidate its position in East Germany, to see that Communist officials were moved into key positions, to see in fact that the eastern zone of Germany came well under the dominance of communism. In pursuance of this objective, the Soviet created what it calls the German Democratic Republic, which is designed, of course, to perpetuate the partition of Germany. It had no legal status and no legal entity; it was created by the Soviet Union. Indeed, let me remind the House that when an attempt was made by the people of East Germany themselves in 1953 to interfere with this course of events the attempt was put down at once by force of arms by the Russians. Their next step was to put the Russian sector of Berlin under the control of an East German State. The Russians created an illegal situation, and then they went on to profit by it. This was their policy, and it is very similar to the policy that was followed in the 1930's by Hitler- a policy of step by step and one event leading to the other. In this way they pursued their design, which was quite obviously there from the start. Now they suggest that there should be a separate peace treaty with East Germany and with West Germany. "Never mind about it being illegal " say the Russians. " Brush aside legalities " says the honorable member for Wills. What the Russians have done has been achieved by force and by fraud, but they ask us to recognize it and to proceed from there. That is the position, and that is the position which the honorable member for Wills, speaking on behalf of his party, indicated he was willing to accept this afternoon. So the first point I want to make is that there is no legal justification for Russia's action. The second point I want to make is that there is no moral right for Russia's action in this matter. I think it is extremely important for every one, not just for those of us here in this Parliament, but for every one in the free nations, to understand what the processes have been - step by step, no legal basis, no moral basis, just what you can get by force or by trickery, and there you are. It is a good thing, I think, if we all understand that, because it would be remarkable if we imagined that peace could be secured on such a basis. The Western powers have offered to hold a free election to get the opinion of the German people. The Russians will not have it. Of course they will not have it because they know what the result would be! They dare not have a free election. While they are quite willing to talk about having two Germanys, saying that this is a matter for the Germans themselves to settle, they are very careful to avoid a real expression of opinion from the German people because they know what it would be. And they say - which is true - that Berlin is not the only issue, that it is part of the German problem. Of course it is part of the German problem. But it is a part that the Soviet wishes to settle on its own terms. For all their talk of self-determination, the Russians have made it plain by every action and by all their negotiations - or refusals to negotiate - that in their view "selfdetermination " means self-determination by the Russians for the Germans. Perhaps we might ask ourselves why this matter has not come to a head before. Why is it being brought up now? Why has it not happened before in the course of the sixteen years since the end of the war? None of us can follow the devious forces that work in the government of the Soviet Union or understand the reasons for all of its actions, but I suggest that there are some which are fairly plain. One is that the Russians needed time to develop and consolidate this position which they have taken up. Obviously they could not proceed until they had created an East German State, until they had created a power, until there were good Communists in control. Perhaps another reason is that the Russians now feel themselves so strong as a result of their recent experiments in atomic fission and in rocketry that they can take greater risks than they took before and so are willing now to press the matter a little harder. Perhaps they think the West is getting tired of the problem and that people are saying - we heard something like it this afternoon from the honorable member for Wills - "Berlin is not worth war. We are not going into this again." These are all reasons, which, if you wanted to commit yourself to the course of action to which the Russians have committed themselves, you might find very convenient. What is the situation which the Russians hope to create? What they hope to create is a Berlin closed off in East Germany, with access at the mercy of the East German State. The Russians would be standing behind the East Germans ready to make it appear that any one who tried to interfere with what the East Germans thought about access was committing aggression against a free nation. They are ready to make it appear that Berlin is the capital of the so called German Democratic Republic and in any event to present it to the world as a fait accompli. They hope that if the East Germans do anything aggressive against Berlin, the world will take the same view as many people took when Hitler invaded the Rhineland, that he was only going into his own backyard anyway. This is the pattern the Russians are creating and these are the dangers with which they confront us. They hope that world opinion - there may be some chance of this - will swing to the point where it no longer cares about preserving West Berlin, no longer sees the issues clearly and no longer realizes that a threat to West Berlin is a threat to Western freedom. We hear proposals that West Berlin could survive as a free city. What is meant by a " free city "? How can there be a free city surrounded by a country intent on wiping it out? These proposals for a free city may have some validity for a short time, but no one could seriously think that Berlin, isolated, alone and friendless, could long survive. Having said this, I think I should say something about our course of action in this country. We are a small nation; we are not one of the great powers. But that is no reason to think that we have no course of action to follow and that we have nothing to guide us. Though we are a small nation, we have never hesitated to support our friends and allies - indeed, our kith and kin - in two great wars. Perhaps the picture was clearer then. Perhaps it was more Obvious then which was the side of aggression and which was the side of peace. Perhaps the issues were simpler and easier to understand when there was an open military attack than they are now in a state of cold war. The techniques and the ceaseless and practised voice of propaganda may now have blurred the picture and made it more difficult for us to realize that the threats to freedom now are just as great and just as important as they have ever been, that we should stand with those with whom we stood before in different circumstances and that these threats are nonetheless real because they appear in a different form. These considerations are the concern of free men everywhere. If the allies with whom we have stood before in different circumstances fail now, it must be obvious that our freedom could not long survive. Our course, surely, is to realize in the first place that the goodwill, the unity and the help of free men everywhere is necessary to these great powers that lead the free world. We must realize that the present events are not remote events of no concern to us; they are indeed events of very great concern to us. We may be a small nation, but we are not without influence. Indeed, our influence in the world has been exerted quite markedly in recent years, and I believe it is out of all proportion to our size. We have demonstrated on more than one occasion our ability to take part in world events and world politics, and to do so with effect. We must continue to do so now. Our only real and effective way to play a part is to play it in partnership with the great powers with whom we have always stood in alliance. This does not, of course, rule out the fact that the United Nations may have a very important part to play. I do not for a moment deny that. It does not mean that the United Nations has no part to play or that we should not be concerned with the United Nations. But it does mean that even if the United Nations does play a part, there must be no disunity between us and our allies of the past. We must stand together in whatever negotiations or whatever arrangements are being made. It does not mean, either, that there is no room for discussion and no room for negotiation outside the United Nations. No one suggests for a moment that it does mean this. Indeed, the negotiations we all hope will take place may require great patience and great tolerance. But we must adhere to our principles and maintain our loyalties. This is the course above all that we must follow. We must stand with our allies whatever the events are, in negotiation in the United Nations and outside the United Nations, and, if the worst comes, we must participate with them in the worst of all disasters. Whatever happens, we must stand with the forces of the free world and play our part, whether it be large or small. Freedom cannot be compromised without being lost. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- **Mr. Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. Throughout his speech, the Minister for Health **(Dr. Donald Cameron)** grossly and wilfully misrepresented my remarks, and a recourse to " Hansard " will show this. It will show that, bereft of any argument of his own, he could only twist mine. {: #subdebate-36-0-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Once again we have heard some of the sabre rattlers on the other side of the House calling for another war. Every time there is an opportunity to cry out for war and the slaughter of mankind, we can rely upon them to take it. We cannot forget the occasion when there was a dispute over the Suez Canal. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** told us that we could almost guarantee a war over 'that incident. The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** went to the press and said, " I have 900 front-line troops ready to take action almost immediately, if you will only please accommodate us". In 1951, the Prime Minister returned from abroad and virtually guaranteed us a war within three years. He did it with great elation. He said: "We are certain to have a war within three years. We must gird our loins and prepare for the fray." The speeches that have come from honorable members opposite to-day have not been speeches calling for peace, as the people of the world are calling for peace. They have been the speeches of the war-mongers, the speeches of the people who say that as a war is inevitable, we should get stuck into it. They are the speeches of the people who believe that, if need be, we should fight a nuclear war that will destroy at least 500,000,000 people in Europe alone over a city or half a city. Nobody in Germany itself or even in West Berlin would be prepared to plunge the world into a great blood-bath of the magnitude of a nuclear war. Honorable members opposite who, surprisingly on the eve of an election, are crying out for war, are far removed from the yearnings of the people of the world and the yearnings of the wives, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and every citizen of Australia. These people are crying out for peace, not for war at any price, which appears to be the cry of honorable members opposite. The Minister for Health **(Dr. Donald Cameron),** who has just resumed his seat, made, I thought, an unpardonable error, if it was an error, in accusing the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** of having said something to the effect that we do not care what happens. The honorable member said nothing of the kind. He said, "I am not prepared to spill one drop of Australian blood fighting over West Berlin ". He said that the division of Berlin into two sectors in the first instance was a stupid and tragic mistake and a mistake that should not now be paid for in Australian blood. When the honorable member for Wills spoke thus, he spoke for all decent Australian citizens, who do not want war. They want the people of the world to sit down and negotiate some sensible peace arrangement that will avoid the holocaust that must accompany a nuclear war. It is surprising that a responsible Minister should get up in this Parliament and - I will not say deliberately misrepresent the honorable member for Wills, because I do not think the Minister would deliberately do that - show such a misunderstanding of what an honorable member said. If a member of this Parliament cannot understand what another member is saying, he has no right to stand up here and simulate anger and indignation, with a smile all over his face, as the Minister did. Clearly the Minister was trying to establish ground for his suggestion that when a person cries out for peace he must be a Communist, and that people who advocate peace are, in other words, crowning the Communist with an aura of respectability. Those who cry out for peace are not necessarily Communists, and the Minister has no right to brand them as Communists merely because they have the courage to say what they think. The Minister asked, " Why do not the Russians agree to free elections in Germany? " Well, why do they not agree? The reason they will not agree to free elections in Germany is because they know they would lose. But there is nothing odd about this. This is precisely the reason why we would not agree to free elections in Viet Nam, despite the fact that we had agreed that there should be free elections in Viet Nam. We did not carry out our agreement when we discovered that we were not going to win a free election. In that respect the Russians have done exactly what we did. They are prepared to agree to free elections only when they are sure of being on the winning side, just as we were prepared to have free elections in Viet Nam only if we could be sure of winning. {: .speaker-JUN} ##### Mr Chresby: -- Which " we " are you talking about? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Which " we ", asks the honorable member. Here is a gentleman who, I take it, will be nominating for a seat in this Parliament in the next election. Yet he tells us that he does not know what I mean when I say " we ". Everybody knows who the parties were to the Viet Nam agreement which provided that there would have to be free elections. Those are the ones I speak of when I say " we ". I mean we of the Western nations. Talking about nations, several speakers, notably the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** have suggested that it is about time we reached some common understanding on the meaning of certain words that we use. What do we mean when we say certain things? We may as well start by making up our minds what we mean by the word " free " when we use it in the cliche " the free nations of the world ". Let us consider the North Atlantic Treaty Organization powers. Among them is a nation called Portugal. No one in his wildest dreams would ever suggest that Portugal was a free nation. Nobody can say that Turkey is a free nation. Even Greece, which has made great advances in recent years, is still far from being a true democracy in the sense that we understand the word. When we wave our flags and talk about the free nations, we should remember that we include in them the Arab republics. Nothing could be further from freedom than the system that prevails in the Arab republics. We include also Spain, and we include Portugal. We include any country, in fact, that is not on the other side of the fence. Among the nations that we speak of when we use the term " the free nations of the world " are some in which thrive the most tyrannical forms of dictatorship that the world has ever seen. So, let us not split principles. Let us not double-talk ourselves and mesmerize ourselves into believing in a world situation so completely false as to deserve not even a minute's consideration in any sensible parliament. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- Are Hungary and Poland free? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- No, of course they are not. That is why I say that when we use the words " the free nations of the world ", pretending that every country not in the Soviet bloc is a free nation, we should take another look at our approach to the matter or we should have ourselves examined by a psychiatrist. It seems unbelievable to me that nearly seventeen years after the defeat of Nazi Germany there is still no peace settlement in respect of Germany. I cannot understand how anybody could justify that situation. The division of Berlin, which was agreed to by the Allied powers just before the defeat of Nazi Germany, was, no doubt, the most stupid and tragic mistake ever made in the history of mankind. It was stupid and tragic because, in my view, it made a unified Germany an utter impossibility. It was hoped that West Berlin would provide a permanent centre of espionage and a permanent centre for the dissemination of propaganda against the Communist bloc, and particularly against East Berlin and East Germany. The move succeeded to an extent. It succeeded for a long time because of American aid and because America pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into West Berlin for the sole purpose of setting up a kind of favorable shop window for East Germany to look at. As I have said, it succeeded, and for the last sixteen years there has been a certain amount of success, in that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people have been induced to leave the East Berlin sector and East Germany and to go to West Berlin or West Germany. Then in one fell stroke the Communists destroyed the usefulness of West Berlin in this way, when they physically sealed it off from the rest of Berlin and from East Germany. Whether we like it or not, this represented a major victory for the Communists, because it demonstrated the hopelessness of ever achieving a united Germany. It said, in effect, to the .people of West Berlin, " You have now lost your last hope of ever achieving a united Germany ". And not one shot was fired! On that night when they sealed off West Berlin from East Germany, the Communists in one fell stroke destroyed the work that had been done, with the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, in making West Berlin an espionage centre and a centre for the dissemination of publicity and propaganda against East Germany. The West Berliners must now either flee to West Germany, or they must make their peace and return to East Germany. Everybody knows that West Berlin, as a factor in influencing East German opinion, is now a spent force. The honorable member for McPherson **(Mr. Barnes)** said, "There will be no war over Berlin because we have made it clear that we will fight over Berlin." What utter trash! What utter rubbish! The plain fact is that there is no reason for the Soviet to have any war now, because the Communists have got what they wanted in Berlin. They have now effectively sealed off West Berlin from East Germany. So the Western sector of the city is no longer of any use as a centre of espionage and propaganda against East Germany. There is no need to fight over Berlin, of course, because it has already been lost. Let us face it. There is no middle course for the people in West Berlin now. If a war were fought over Berlin, the place of the people of West Berlin would be completely untenable, and they realize it. They know that they have to get out of the city and go to either West Germany or East Germany. Let us never forget that of the hundreds of thousands of people from East Germany who have used West Berlin as an avenue of escape to West Germany, probably thousands at least, and perhaps tens of thousands, are espionage agents of East Germany. So we have not done so much good for ourselves as we think we have done. What we have really done has been to flood the whole of the West German republic with spies and espionage agents from the east. If ever there is a conflict between West Germany and East Germany, those spies and agents will rise and strike at the heart of the Government of West Germany. Everybody knows that that is a fact. We know that if the Russians sign a peace treaty with East Germany such a treaty will be accompanied by a mutual-assistance pact. That goes without saying, of course. The Western powers would then have to treat with East Germany and not with the Russians on German affairs. A conflict between the Western powers and the Government of East Germany would force the Western powers to ask the people of West Germany to join with them in a war against the Germans of East Germany. I remind people who talk about the legality and the sanctity of treaties that we must never forget that the Western powers have already broken a sacred treaty which forbids the re-militarization of Germany. So let us not be too sanctimonious about this thing. Let us not say with a puritanical air, " Look what terrible people they are! " Let us put our own house in order. We have permitted the breaking of the treaty which should have prevented, and would have prevented, the re-militarization of Germany. Let us not forget, too, that the powers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will not be a very effective force for the rallying of the democratic peoples of the world. We cannot imagine democrats anywhere believing that some of the countries of the Nato bloc represent the kind of democracy that decent people would embrace. I believe that a conflict between the Western powers supporting West Germany and the Russian or Communist bloc supporting East Germany would leave the Western powers open to a very serious and, I believe, tragic weakness. They would be left open at once to acts of espionage, opposition and treachery which would become the every day activities of the agents who have slipped through West Berlin to West Germany for that purpose - and for that purpose only. There is no doubt that if a war eventuated East Germany would call on the Soviet for aid, and that a war fought with conventional weapons would eventually lead to victory for the Communist powers. That statement is not based on wishful thinking. It is based on the opinions of men like Viscount Montgomery and other leading experts in military affairs. Even the Americans admit that a war with the Russian and Communist bloc fought with conventional weapons would lead to the certain defeat of the Western powers. This means either that we accept defeat or that we resort to nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare would not be any better than defeat by conventional weapons. It would mean only that there would be defeat for both sides. Worse than that, it would mean not only military defeat for both sides, but also the virtual extermination of the people of the best part of Europe. Such a war would turn the best part of Europe into an enormous human cemetery in which at least 500,000,000 people could expect to be destroyed. I do not think that the Germans or any other people believe that West Berlin is worth another world war. I can understand the reasoning that prompts the United States of America, for example, to want to fight the Communist bloc with nuclear weapons from bases in the United Kingdom and other European countries. But the fact remains that, as I said before, the whole world is crying out for peace. Nearly 1,500,000,000 mothers throughout the world are crying out for peace. I say that the world's leaders are failing the people of their respective countries in their approach to this enormous problem. It might be a good idea if representatives of the mothers of the world got together and tried to settle the problem which the men who are leaders of the world certainly are not settling. Perhaps a conference under the joint chairmanship of **Mrs. Khrushchev** and **Mrs. Kennedy** could produce far better results than have been produced by the conferences that have taken place so far between their husbands. I could not imagine any worse results or any more futile consequences accruing from such a conference of women. I believe that total disarmament is the only answer to the world's problems, **Sir.** This, I know, would not suit the wealthy manufacturers of armaments, especially those of the United States, where peace would spell financial ruin for hundreds of armament-manufacturing firms. Since such people have a tremendous influence on American political affairs, it is easy to understand why the American Government does not want total disarmament. The Prime Minister has said that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has proposed total disarmament, and stated that it would agree to any system of policing the proposal that the Western powers may put forward. What is wrong with such a proposition? {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- How can policing be guaranteed? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- We have been told that this suggestion has been put forward by the Russians. Will anybody tell me what is wrong with total disarmament accompanied by a proposal for its policing on terms determined by the Western powers? Do we refuse to accept this proposition because we fear that once all weapons are destroyed we shall not be able to stand up against what we are pleased to call subversion - or, in other words, the battle for the minds of men? If this is our attitude, it disgraces us and all the things that we stand for. It shows that we have no confidence in our own system. If we are not prepared to stand up in debate and set our own ideologies against those of our opponents, we display a weakness in our own armour. I believe that the greatest man in the world to-day is Nehru of India, a man who is leading the uncommitted peoples of Asia. {: #subdebate-36-0-s3 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-36-0-s4 .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES:
Barker **.- Mr. Deputy .Speaker,** I am astonished once again, as I am always astonished, when I listen to the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron).** I find it difficult to answer his arguments, because it is incredible to me that a person brought up in this country in the traditions in which the honorable member has been reared can utter remarks such as those which we have heard from him this afternoon. I propose to give my view of what has happened to the honorable member and to explain why he has said these things. I have never really been able to understand the attitude expressed ' by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. To-day, the honorable member has only echoed the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant),** whose explanation of his remarks I accept because it means exactly the same as was meant by his original words. The whole burden of the remarks made by the 'honorable member for Wills was that there is no moral distinction between the policies of the Western powers on the one hand and those of the Communist powers on the other. The honorable member for Hindmarsh went much further. Not only did he say that there was no moral distinction between the two sides. Not only did he not come down on the Western side and approve the policies of the West. The whole tenor of his speech suggested that if the honorable member approved anything he approved the Communist view. We saw him almost gloating as he reeled off, one after the other, the setbacks which the Western powers had experienced over a period. Anybody who heard the honorable member could come to no conclusion other than that he gloated over those setbacks. The honorable member has done nothing but repeat the same old shibboleths. As my friend, the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** has said, the reporter representing the " Tribune " probably suffered from writer's cramp after recording the list reeled off by the honorable member. In this debate, **Sir, we** are discussing great issues, although one may be pardoned for not thinking so after listening to the honorable member for Hindmarsh. These issues relate primarily to one small portion of the world - West Berlin - and the decision by the Soviet Union to resume tests of nuclear weapons. Taken separately and in isolation it is perhaps not difficult to take the view that neither of these is worth getting excited about, which I suggest is the view taken by the honorable member for Hindmarsh and the honorable member for Wills at least over the Berlin question and our attitude towards it. Taken together - and this is the point I want to make - and in the context of events and the pattern which has gone before and will certainly come after, in my view they represent a watershed in history and on this I agree with the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth).** Certainly they present us with a crisis in the relations between east and west. It is a crisis which, if it is recognized for what it is and is handled resolutely and wisely, could lead to our ultimate survival, but which, if we temporize and find excuses for not facing up to the issues involved, will certainly lead in the long run to the destruction of the Western world as we understand it. The Soviet Union has threatened the West with what will happen if the Allies in the war against Germany do not acquiesce in settlement of the Berlin question on terms which she lays down - terms which give the Western Berliners no choice between abandoning everything and escaping to the West on the one hand and bowing to Communist tyranny on the other hand. They are terms which by removing all hope of the reunification of Germany have removed the one thing which has kept the spirit of the people in West Berlin alive over the last fifteen years. They are terms which irrevocably extend the iron grip of the Soviet Union to a further portion of Europe and which, if accepted, make nonsense of all legal and moral obligations in international relations. They are terms which, in effect, as the Minister for Health **(Dr. Donald Cameron)** said, make naked power the sole arbiter in all international questions. What is more, the Soviet Union has underlined the threat she made in the original aide-memoire over Berlin by emphasizing, in the decision to resume nuclear testing, that she had the power to carry the threats out. Who can doubt that the two questions are connected, that the one is crude naked blackmail to achieve the other, that to achieve her objectives in Berlin she is capitalizing on the horror that decent people everywhere have for thermo-nuclear weapons and for a war in which they are achieved? It is, I believe, the two questions taken together which make the present situation at once so important and so dangerous. Even if we were prepared to compromise on Berlin and thus abandon 2,250,000 gallant people to the horrors of Communist tyranny - something, incidentally, which the so-called humanitarians would have no hesitation in doing - " We will not fight over Berlin ", and " Not one drop of Australian blood, under any circumstances, will be spilt over Berlin ", say the honorable member for Hindmarsh and the honorable member for Wills - we must ask ourselves where such an attitude would lead us in terms of our most naked self-interest. Even people who believe that ultimately the West will have to take a stand, even at the risk of war, against attempts by the Soviet Union to threaten and bully her way towards her objective of world domination can find plenty of excuses for not taking that stand over Berlin. **Mr. Macmillan** said that it is unthinkable that we should go to war over Berlin, and although I believe that remark has been misinterpreted it represents, literally, what many people believe. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has said that Berlin is indefensible, set, as it is, in the middle of Communist territory. It is a running sore which exposes Communist weakness to the Western gaze and must therefore be removed if tension is to be removed. So runs another argument which is used. If we are going to make a stand in which we run the risk of involving ourselves in war, why pick on an ex-enemy like Germany? After all, the fact that the Soviet Union, having suffered as she did from German aggression, may have genuine fears of a re-united and re-armed Germany, makes this a special case and a bad one for the West to make a stand on. I have heard all these arguments. I believe even people who believe that ultimately the West will have to make a stand somewhere - the people who use such arguments - should search their hearts and consciences. They should ask themselves whether they really believe this to be a special case as the honorable member for Hindmarsh, even taking the most charitable view of his attitude, thinks, or whether their attitude is determined by an understandable horror of the dangers of nuclear war. How much influence has the threat implied in the decision to resume nuclear testing had on their decision? Would it not be possible to find equally valid reasons for regarding future Soviet demands as special cases, one after the other, until we are all under the Communist yoke? I ask the House not to ignore the lessons of history in deciding on the validity of the point I am making. Let us look at history. I want to quote a little bit of history, too. 1 ask the House not to ignore the lessons of history in respect of the particular point of view which I am expressing. The pre-war example of the reaction of the European powers to the excessive demands of Nazi Germany is too wellknown for me to enlarge on here, but that does not in any way detract from its validity and relevance to the current situation. The excuses given for each retreat were much the same. The underlying motive was exactly the same - a genuine horror of war. We do not have to go back to the pre-war situation to obtain our guide-lines to sum up the present position. Nothing is more fascinating or more revealing or helpful in estimating where we stand than an examination of the Soviet Union's approach to the problems created by the development of nuclear weapons. Perhaps we are inclined to forget - so significant have they become in our thinking these days - that there was a time after the war when nuclear weapons were still the prerogative of the West. How did the Soviet Union react to that situation? With a cold-blooded effrontery, as if no Other version of reality than its own was even conceivable. Through all the media and organization at its disposal, through diplomacy and propaganda the Kremlin advanced these related themes. The first was that the decisiveness of nuclear weapons was over-rated, and that they did not in any essential way affect the essentials of warfare or the relationship between the powers. That is what it was designed to demonstrate - that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics remained predominant in the essential categories of power - and it was intended mainly for home consumption. It is interesting to note that the Soviet people were not even told that bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were told that the war against Japan was ended because of the Red Army entering the war. It was not until 1954 that the people of the Soviet Union for the first time saw a picture of the familiar mushroom-shaped cloud which we identify with an atomic bomb and which has been a familiar symbol of it in the West for ten years. A second theme by the Soviet Union maintained that, although not decisive, nuclear weapons were inherently in a special category of horror separate from other weapons and should therefore be banned. By means of diplomatic notes, peace congresses, resolutions and propaganda, this campaign sought to paralyse the psychological basis for the use of the West's most potent weapon. It is worth while recalling the years in which you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** were representing us in such a distinguished fashion in the United Nations. In those years the Kremlin resisted all efforts to negotiate a system of international inspection. Every United States proposal in the United Nations Disarmament Commission was countered by a Soviet demand to " ban the bomb ". By doing this, the Soviet created a psychological framework for diverting attention from the Soviet aggression which alone could unleash nuclear weapons and for directing it to the horror that they represented. So-called " atomic aggression " - a Soviet phrase - came to seem more terrible than the Soviet aggression which, by the West's repeated declarations, had to precede it. I believe the West's declarations because the West has never, even during the period in which it alone had this weapon in its possession, used it in the post-war period. Soviet diplomatic moves, as we in this country are only too aware, are only part of the story. The Soviet Union launched a world-wide propaganda move to outlaw nuclear weapons. Its principal tool has been the so-called World Peace Movement which has covered practically every country in the world, disseminating a stream of propaganda about the horror of nuclear warfare and the necessity for outlawing it. Although the Soviet peace offensive which has been directed to the horror of nuclear weapons, and to their elimination, started immediately after the war, the Soviet has been able successfully to resist its own propaganda. In an extremely short time, Russia was able to manufacture and set up its own arsenal of nuclear weapons. It was not deterred by its emphasis on the horrors of nuclear war from itself acquiring the bomb. Possession of the bomb has not deterred Russia from continuing its propaganda offensive against the bomb, nor has the Soviet hesitated to use threats of nuclear attack to gain its ends. **President** Kennedy recently described the Soviet decision to resume tests as nuclear blackmail. But, **Sir, it** is vital to remember that there are really two forms of nuclear blackmail. The first is that which, by using arguments finely attuned to prevailing fears, attempts to shift the primary concern away from Soviet aggression, which is the real security problem, to the immorality of the use of nuclear weapons, which happens to be the most effective means of resisting the Soviet and preventing war. With grand unconcern for consistency, the Soviet then turned to the other form of blackmail - the threat of the use of its growing arsenal of nuclear weapons. In either case, the consequences is a lowered will of resistance. Both forms of nuclear blackmail are illustrated by the boasts of an East German newspaper that the World Peace Movement had restrained the United States from using atomic weapons in Korea, while the development of the Soviet hydrogen bomb had tied the West's hands in Indo-China. The results, **Sir, are** not hard to find. In every crisis, from Suez to Hungary and to Indo-China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has succeeded in shifting the onus of initiating nuclear war onto the West. In every situation there have been powerful advocates in the non-Soviet countries urging peace because the alternative seemed too terrible to contemplate. The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** who is interjecting, is one of them. The more terrible Soviet propaganda can paint the horrors of war, even in the guise of appeals for peace, the more likely it is to undermine the willingness of the West to resist. I emphasize this policy of psychological and physical blackmail because it sets the stage and creates the atmosphere for the events which we are discussing. The Berlin question cannot be considered apart from it. We must ask ourselves, if we are inclined to make excuses for the West's not taking a stand on Berlin, whether we have not been unconscious or conscious victims of this dual form of Soviet blackmail. I believe that the answer would lead us to the conclusion that the situation would be the same in relation to any further threats, wherever they may be. I believe that the time to steel our nerves and stand firm is not later but now, and on Berlin. {: #subdebate-36-0-s5 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** in the course of Khrushchev's speech to the twentieth congress of the Russian Communist Party in which he was downgrading Stalin, one criticism which he made of Stalin was that Stalin had run unwarranted risks during the 1948 crisis in Berlin because the United States at that stage had possessed the atomic bomb and the Soviet Union did not. That statement showed quite clearly that the United States was not in a hurry, notwithstanding its superiority in atomic weapons at that time to commence a war over Berlin. I think that this debate has gone into an atmosphere of semi-hysteria which needs some of the corrective which **Mr. Macmillan** gave on the golf course, and for which he has been very heavily castigated by one of the most evil influences in Britain - the Beaverbrook press. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Did you say " evil "? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- Yes. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Why? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I am not obliged, in a speech on Berlin, to say why I think that the Beaverbrook press is evil, but if you would like me to tell you in private conversation 1 shall do so. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Is it too British for you? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- No. It is very unBritish. The existence of Berlin as a western island in a Communist-controlled area, 110 miles from the eastern frontier of the Federal German Republic, originated from a shrewd bargain driven by Soviet diplomacy and it continues to be exploited by Soviet diplomacy. The honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin)** mentioned the very great concessions which the West made for the right to occupy Western Berlin. The Western Allies handed over to the Soviet occupation forces, Thuringia, Mecklenburg. Saxony and the Province of Saxony. The British handed over important territory around Schwerin. The frontier between the occupation forces had followed the Elbe for a considerable distance and had diverted from it easterly, in territorial favour of the Western Allies, to the Baltic coast. To get West Berlin in exchange for this was a poor exchange except in one respect - the psychological significance of Berlin as the capital. It is quite clear that Stalin was thinking beyond the settlement whereas the Western diplomats believed they could make a settlement with Soviet Russia, an ideological expansive force, just as if they were dealing with the Emperor Franz Josef of Austria in traditional diplomacy. They thought that they could make a settlement and that that would be the finish of it - that they could give these great concessions and put themselves in West Berlin. I do not mean to say that because this was a mistake originally the continued Western pressure has not become a point of the greatest ideological significance. If one wishes to go back to those early post-war settlements, I cannot see the sense in abandoning so much territory to put the West in an isolated island as a Communist squeeze point within a Communist-controlled area. The Soviet has since diplomatically exploited the isolated position of West Berlin. It has recognized all along that it is a tremendous ideological battleground on which it seeks to consolidate its grip on satellite people while using Berlin as an issue which it hopes will divide the Western powers by seeming not to be worth a stand. Periodic denial of access to Berlin is a device of psychological warfare and diversion. Almost every Berlin crisis is a diversion to camouflage the really significant happening. Berlin is always represented as important, but what is vitally important is often happening elsewhere. The Berlin crisis of 1948 concealed the real field of Communist advance which was in China. In answer to the gross misrepresentation of the Labour attitude by the Minister for Health **(Dr. Donald Cameron),** I say now that the last Labour Government in Australia participated fully in the Berlin airlift both with aircraft and aircrews, which helped to maintain the independence of West Berlin, and if the Minister would like to have a look at the statements on that subject that **Mr. Chifley** made on his return from Berlin, he would find them interesting. The Berlin crisis of to-day is part of a build-up leading to the psychological warfare associated with the resumption of nuclear testing. There was a refer ence to the power of nuclear weapons when Khrushchev informed the United Kingdom Ambassador to Russia, in one of the most incredible conversations in the history of diplomacy, that Britain could be destroyed by six hydrogen bombs and France by nine. Then came the threat of a new Berlin blockade, and then the threat implicit in the resumption of testing. This is certainly not an atmosphere which can generate any confidence. The Summit consultations were finally broken off when it was clear that they were not going to lead to concessions on Berlin. The pressure on the West to abandon Berlin is, of course, an effort to win a major ideological victory. The traditional capital of Germany has ideological importance, and the right to occupy it had a certain value for the West, although excessive territory concessions were made for that right. But, to-day, the abandonment of 2,800,000 Berliners to communism would strike a major blow at aspirations for liberty everywhere - in Hungary and in Poland, where discontent with Communist tyranny is manifest, and in East Germany, where people have been escaping to the West, not in thousands as the. honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** said, but in millions. It is this ideological goal which Khrushchev is pursuing. **Dr. Adenauer,** .Chancellor of West Germany, wrote, in April 1960 - and this is worth considering - >I am convinced that Khrushchev does not warn war, because he has nothing to win by it. In this respect, you will note, he agrees with **Mr. Macmillan** He went on - >He knows as well as we all do that a nuclear war would strike the Soviet Union and its people every bit as heavily as it would strike any other country on earth. But Khrushchev will try every other available means to reach the goals of his policy. **Dr. Adenauer** continued If there were any doubts about this, the Sovie campaign against Berlin has removed them. Ke was referring to the campaign early last year. !t is almost a pendulum policy. If the Soviets are moving in Asia they create a crisis in Berlin. If they are moving in Europe they create a crisis in Asia. It goes back and forth like a pendulum. **Dr. Adenauer** continued - >In my opinion, the notion that Khrushchev launched this campaign merely in order to force a Summit conference is dead wrong. Naturally he wanted the Summit conference too. But more than that he wants to incorporate Berlin in the Soviet power sphere. Since he cannot achieve this aim immediately he hopes that Berlin can first be made into a so-called " free city ". In this way the destruction of Berlin's freedom is to be prepared. One of the things that is unintelligible about immediate post-war Western diplomacy in giving away an enormous area in exchange for this isolated city was that the diplomats should have known, after all, that the casus belli that started World War II. in 1939 was another of those free cities, that isolated city - Danzig. It seems to me that if you want to give somebody an opportunity to make international mischief you create a Trieste or a Danzig, or an isolated free city. The isolation and discrediting of Adenauer is a major aim of communism. In 1948, among the eight decisions of the Cominform were the following declared goals: To divide the West, to absorb the East ideologically and militarily - and that has happened in China - to win world labour to the camp of communism, and to divide the United States from Western Europe. It is a major aim to fan divisions between Britain, France and Germany, and by the creation of a series of crises to induce the United Kingdom to abandon association with West Germany. The charges against West Germany by Khrushchev were 'designed to assist in the production of these responses in Britain. Answering those charges the British note presented on 17th July in Moscow said this- >The inhabitants of West Berlin- Who had been accused of political war - are not trying to bring about a change in the present situation unilaterally, and are not threatening the interests of the other parties concerned. Neither they nor the authorities in the Western sectors of the city are disturbing public or international order in any way. . . . The Government of the Federal German Republic cannot reasonably be accused of causing tension in Europe or provoking a crisis over Berlin. The position of Berlin was thus defined in the British note - >As the Soviet Government must be aware, the city of Berlin does not belong to the Soviet Union nor to the so-called German Democratic > >Republic..... Berlin remains under its own special regime. The Protocol of September 12th, 1944 is perfectly clear on this point. . . . This Protocol, which was approved by the Soviet Government on February 6, 1945 remains in force. It can be revised or annulled by agreement between the four powers but not by an arrangement arrived at between one of the Powers and authorities set up by that Power in Germany. Her Majesty's Government in any event reject emphatically the assertion that the rights which they enjoy in Berlin . . . can in any way be affected or terminated by unilateral acts of the Soviet Union. One other aspect of this debate is the resumption of nuclear testing. It is interesting to trace the history of this over a short period. On 31st March, 1958, the Supreme Soviet passed certain resolutions declaring that the Soviet Union would now unilaterally cease tests. This declaration followed immediately after the the greatest series of atomic and hydrogen bomb tests that have ever taken place. Immediately after the series had been satisfactorily concluded the Supreme Soviet declared that unilaterally the Soviet Union would abandon such tests. The resolution of 31st March, 1958, was incorporated in a letter from **Mr. Khrushchev** to the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government, dated 4th April, 1958. In this letter Khrushchev stated the resolution of the Supreme Soviet, and invited the adherence of the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government to that declaration. The United States was then, almost on that very day, on the point of undertaking a series of nuclear tests. **Mr. Eisenhower** answered on 8th April, 1958, and said that in capital letters the Soviet had announced unilaterally the cessation of nuclear tests, while in small letters it said that if the others did not cease such tests the Soviet Union would continue them, and that the Soviet Union had finally brought this proposal forward immediately after completing a tremendous series of tests when it knew that other tests were about to be started in the United States. It is interesting that those notes led to a situation in which there was set up a body to negotiate on the question of nuclear disarmament. The British made a declaration that, while that body was negotiating, they would not resume testing. They had carried out hydrogen tests at Christmas Island. Then began this hiatus - no tests - in which the atmosphere has been allowed to recover. The point, of course, is that the resumption of tests by the Soviet is not necessarily a threat of war, but it does expose the fact that principles are not binding and that the turning on and off of tests is to meet the Soviet's scientific convenience. When they turn them off they issue statements which name the neutral powers as beneficiaries and their aspirations as the influence motivating Soviet policy. In the statement of the supreme Soviet there is a long reference to all kinds of powers, such as Burma, in the so-called neutral bloc. When they turn the tests on again they say, as can be seen in the " Tribune ", that this action is a guarantee of peace. In fact, it is part of the effort - by pressure and fear - to win the uncommitted world. It is part of the effort to absorb the East ideologically and militarily. The best analysis of the nature of the present Soviet tests that I have seen is contained in the London " Times ", of 8th September, 1961, which, in a sub-leader entitled "Tactics of the Tests", says- >Apart from its calculated frightfulness, the Soviet Government's announcement that it was proposing to manufacture bombs with a yield equivalent to 100,000,000 tons of T.N.T. was the least important part of its decision to resume nuclear tests. If there is a weakness in the Soviet nuclear armoury it does not lie in the department of big bombs. Both sides already have enough strategic weapons, with invulnerable launching devices, to guarantee devastation of their enemies, whether in a first strike or in retaliation. Although the dark threat of superbombs was an impressive background for the announcement it is clear that they would do little to alter the balance of power. That the explosions have been in the low kiloton and intermediate ranges is significant, but not conclusive. The tests may be of trigger mechanisms for hydrogen bombs, or small versions of larger weapons which are being developed. > >It is more likely that the Russians are seeking to improve the scope and efficiency of their nuclear armoury. They are anxious to perfect the detonation of their thermo-nuclear devices and to develop anti-missile defences. There is as well the important question of tactical atomic weapons. The Soviet ground forces have the means of delivery. The variety of tactical weapons at their disposal is not as wide as that of the west. It has been since 19SS a frequently declared article of Soviet faith that there is no difference in the tactical and strategic use of atomic weapons nor could there ever be. **Mr. Khrushchev,** as recently as April, explained his lack of interest in underground testing by saying that Russia saw no value in tactical atomic weapons. This indicates that Russia saw value only in super weapons. The article continues - >How much of this attitude is a true reflection of Soviet tactical doctrine and how much a reinforcement of the threat of massive retaliation is doubtful. There are many grave aspects of the decision to resume tests. The political implications of its timing and the genetic effects of increased fall-out cannot yet be assessed. The military significance lies not so much in the threat of a lOO-megaton bomb as in the possibility that the tests may involve either a device for the interception of inter-continental ballistic missiles or warheads for tactical nuclear weapons. Those who interpret the position now to the effect that by exploding hydrogen bombs the Soviet has lost ground amongst the neutral powers may be guilty of an over-simplification because many of the neutral bloc are in fact motivated by fear. If the United States had resumed testing unilaterally there would have been a tremendous reaction from them. But basically, most of them really are afraid of Russia, and there is always a tendency to soft-pedal blame directed towards people of whom one is afraid. When the Supreme Soviet passed the resolution to abandon nuclear tests it made other statements for propaganda purposes. These arguments remain in force to-day in the declaration of the Supreme Soviet in which it spoke about the genetic effects of radiation and about the number of people who had died already as the result of radiation. If these are facts, the statements educed by the Soviet originally explaining the abandonment of tests remain valid to-day so that for propaganda purposes it cannot be argued that before this decision to resume hydrogen bomb testing any one else had done so. What appears overwhelmingly clear is that the Soviet must have prepared for the tests for months in advance, and the turning on and turning off of these tests is merely to suit its scientific record convenience. The testing of atomic bombs by France in the Sahara was of about the same significance as the tests which took place at Maralinga. Those of us who saw the Maralinga tests saw them at a time when atomic radiation falling on this country from the testing of hydrogen bombs in Siberia was greater than atomic radiation falling on Australia itself from its own atomic bomb explosions. It needs to be clearly understood that it is the super-megaton bombs which punch up into the higher levels of the atmosphere and create the radiation hazard all over the world. It cannot be contended that France's testing of a 1945 vintage bomb - deplorable though the effects of that action were on the minds of Arabic peoples - was what motivated the resumption of Russian tests, because the French tests initially took place over a year ago and at that time no great power had resumed the testing of hydrogen bombs. The resumption of the testing of hydrogen bombs is the threat to the world. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-36-0-s6 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- One of the really remarkable features of this debate has been the complete unanimity of all honorable members who have participated in it on the extreme urgency of the Berlin issue. No member, to my knowledge, has said, in effect, " Is it not rather futile that we, here, in the Australian Parliament should be considering an issue that has arisen many thousands of miles away? " Not one member has shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well, after all, it is of no immediate concern of ours ". Fundamentally, the Berlin issue touches and concerns each and every individual in this country. Having said that, let me say that one of the most disagreeable features of the debate was the contributions made by the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** and the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron).** The First Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, **Mr. Khrushchev,** is very fond of using the phrase, " History is on our side ". There is not one speech made by **Mr. Khrushchev** - and I feel under some obligation to read every one - in which he does not use that phrase - " History is on our side". After having listened to the honorable member for Wills and the honorable member for Hindmarsh to-day, I feel quite certain **Mr. Khrushchev** could amend that phrase and say. " History is on our side, and so, too, are the arguments of the honorable member for Wills and the honorable member for Hindmash ". I shall be giving myself something in the nature of a bit of sport by referring to their miserable and paltry arguments as I proceed. I want to try to' find some genesis of the Berlin issue, and I feel that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** pointed to it at the very beginning of his speech the other evening when he said that **Sir Winston** Churchill, in his memoirs, had disagreed with the strategy of the Allies in Europe in the closing years of World War II. There is no getting away from that. The Prime Minister said, in effect, that there is not much point in going back over the past, but, by the same token, I believe it is quite futile to ignore the past and to pretend that nothing at all has happened. Just recently, the latest papers dealing with the Teheran Conference have been released, and I want to refer to them, because they are not only germane to the Berlin issue, but, I believe, they are fundamental to any consideration of the entire political structure in Europe to-day. First, I should like to refer to what General Mark Clark wrote in his book, " Calculated Risk". Referring to the Teheran Conference, he said this - >Stalin, it was evident throughout the Big Three meeting and negotiations at Teheran, was one of the strongest boosters of Southern France. He knew exactly what he wanted in a political as well as a military way: and the thing he wanted most was to keep us out of the Balkans, which he had staked out for the Red Army. If we switched our strength from Italy to France, it was obvious to Stalin . . . that we would turn away from Central Europe. " Anvil " (the term used to describe the invasion of Southern France) led into a dead-end street. The Teheran papers that have been released are very bulky, and I can refer only to short excerpts from them. Most of the conference minutes included in the volume of papers that has been released were recorded by Charles E. Bohlem, then Roosevelt's interpreter and now State Department Adviser on Soviet Affairs. The minutes make it clear that Stalin favoured the splitting up of Germany into many small parts. That was at Teheran, and the Soviet's sincerity can be assessed, in all its glibness. when we come to the Potsdam Agreement. Whereas at Teheran. Stalin favoured the splitting up of Germany into many small parts, Roosevelt proposed to divide Germany into five independent countries. Reference is made in the minutes to the celebrated clash between **Mr. Churchill,** as he then was, and Stalin at a dinner. The most notable feature of the dinner, it is said, was the attitude of Marshal Stalin towards the Prime Minister. Marshal Stalin lost no opportunity to get a dig at **Mr. Churchill.** Marshal Stalin said that it was essential, in the future treatment of Germany, to keep her down indefinitely. He said that two conditions had to be met. The first, was that at least 50,000 and perhaps 100,000 of the German Commanding Staff had to be physically liquidated. The second was that the victorious Allies had to retain possession of the important strategic points in the world so that if Germany moved a muscle she could be rapidly stopped. President Roosevelt jokingly said that he would put the figure of the German Commanding Staff which should be executed at 49,000 or more. Of course, Winston Churchill took vigorous exception to that, lt may be that the decisions that were made at Teheran represented a well-meaning error of judgment. On the other hand, one is quite entitled to come to the conclusion that, as far as the Teheran Conference is concerned, there is extreme validity in St. Paul's charge about wickedness in high places. Now I move on to the Berlin issue as such, and I believe it is important to identify two dominant contours of the problem. The first one, as far as the Soviet is concerned, is that Berlin stands as a bastion that has intense and immense psychological importance. Russia to-day is trying to create and keep alive an impression of the utter invincibility of the Soviet in the conduct of all its affairs. The other contour of the problem is to be found in Berlin's territorial importance. It is approximately in the same category as Poland, as Rumania, as Hungary or anywhere else one likes to look in the world where the Soviet has expanded its colonial empire. As far as the present Soviet policy with respect to Berlin is concerned, it represents as stark a repudiation of an international treaty as can be found anywhere in history. The Potsdam Agreement provided quite explicitly for the treatment of Germany as one economic unit. It is impossible to find in the Potsdam Agreement or to any of the protocols attached to the agreement one minor suggestion that Germany was to be permanently divided. The significance of the Teheran Conference in relation to the Potsdam conference is the attitude of Stalin. He was at both. At Teheran, he propounded the idea that Germany should be divided into a number of parts, and at Potsdam he agreed to the ultimate treatment of Germany as one economic unit. The Potsdam Agreement not only provided for the ultimate treatment of Germany as one economic unit, but it laid down plainly the conditions under which Germany was to be rehabilitated, or, if you like, brought back to a position where her social and political behaviour accorded with that of the civilized world. The honorable member for Wills this afternoon discounted the Potsdam Agreement out of hand. He took the view, " Well, it is a legal document; this is a doctrinaire argument ". I ask the honorable member: If we are to snub every international agreement that is made, what, then, is to be the arbitrament in the settlement of peace and war? Am I to understand the honorable member to say, in effect, " It does not matter what agreement you make; if you want to break away from it at some time in the future, then do so by all means"? If you want to abide by an agreement, then, quite plainly the honorable member says you are adopting a legalistic and doctrinaire attitude. It is significant to notice that that apparently was Stalin's view of Teheran. And here is an honorable member to-day saying, as a member of the Australian Labour Party in the National Parliament, that it does not matter a fig what an international agreement says! The honorable gentleman having said this sat down, sopping wet in his own selfrighteousness. He was followed later by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. The battle slogan and the political slogan of the honorable member for Hindmarsh is, " 1 have made up my mind; please do not confuse me with facts". This afternoon, the honorable gentleman savaged every member on this side of the House as being a warmonger. The honorable gentleman apparently takes the view that he has a monopoly of interest in peace and that all other members of this Parliament have no interest in peace. That argument deserves to be repudiated in the plainest possible terms. I come back to the Potsdam agreement. The personal liberties of the German people were to be guaranteed. Would any person in possession of two wits seriously argue that the personal liberties of the German people have been preserved? Another protocol referred to the method by which Germany was to make reparation to the Soviet Union. That protocol has been savaged in a dreadful way. What have the Western proposals been with relation to the unification of Germany? I would have imagined that they were straightforward, simple and extremely modest in their construction. First, the Western proposal was for free elections. Secondly, after the free elections, there was to be the establishment of an all-German government; and thirdly, a peace treaty. Would any person in this House say that they represent a rather extravagant and harsh set of proposals to put before any country? Is any one here frightened of free elections? Would any one say that there is no need to have an all-German government and no need for a peace treaty? It is because the Soviet has found this catalogue of proposals so unattractive that its intransigence has risen to the present heights. In 1 952, the Soviet dismissed out of hand a Western proposal for a United Nations commission to oversee free elections throughout Germany. Am I to interpret that as meaning that the Soviet was not prepared to trust the United Nations commission in overseeing free elections in Germany? We come back to this question: Why is it that the Soviet Union has resisted all along the line the holding of free elections throughout Germany? The simple truth of the matter is that free elections are completely repugnant to the Soviet mind. Only in one State in the world - Kerala, the small State in India - have free elections ever resulted in a Communist government being elected. If free elections were held in Germany to establish an allGerman government, quite plainly a Communist government would not be elected, and that would be a singular defeat for the Soviet. We can judge for ourselves precisely how successful the Soviet has been in providing a democratic state for the people of East Germany. Some 4,000,000 people or thereabouts have been refugees from East Germany. The honorable member for Hindmarsh this afternoon, with a touch almost of the comic opera, said that they are all agents, all subversive people and have all fled into West Germany for no other purpose than to subvert the West. It is difficult to imagine that a member elected to the National Parliament, apparently in full possession of his faculties, could utter such an incredibly stupid statement. These 4,000,000 people have not been given the opportunity to vote in East Germany; but they have voted with their feet and have shown how they regard the form of government in East Germany. The second issue, which, of course, is plainly associated with Berlin, is the resumption of nuclear tests. I thought that this aspect was brilliantly analysed this afternoon by my honorable and gallant friend, the member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes),** when he said that in resuming nuclear tests, the Soviet was resorting to blackmail. And blackmail it is indeed. After years of humbug and all the useless incantations about peace, about banning the bomb and about the great desire that the Soviet people have for peace throughout the world - peace, of course, representing something entirely different to them from the meaning it has for us - the Soviet Union has said in effect, " We intend to go our own way; the unilateral ban on nuclear tests is finished and we will now resume them ". This is not only a stern lesson to the world; it is also a lesson of the utmost significance. On the propaganda side, I suppose one of the extraordinary aspects of the issue is to be found in the ability of the Soviet Union to create in the minds of good men and women throughout the world the view that the Soviet people are decent in all their ways. When they abolished tests, their argument was that this was in the cause of peace. To-day, when they resume tests, they claim that their efforts are bent in the same direction. I want to put to the House very briefly - because that is all I can do - one view on this apparent irrationality in the Soviet foreign policy. It has been expressed in a letter written by **Dr. William** Sargant, one of the most eminent research workers in the field of psychiatry in the world and the author of " Battle for the Mind ". This is what he said - . . it is becoming more and more important that we should all start to get a better understanding of Russian methods of psychological warfare; otherwise the battle for men's minds being waged so intensively at the present time will result in a resounding defeat for the Western nations, and this could be far more devastating in its subsequent effects than the outcome of the present race for rocket supremacy. Obviously, Russian propaganda methods, like others, are based to a large extent on past experience of what works, but, if any expert advice is taken on methods of psychological warfare, it has to come in Russia from scientists versed in Pavlovian theory and practice. The doctor goes on to point out how devastating it can be to the mind trying to follow the pattern of work, the negative stimuli coming with the cessation of tests and then the positive stimuli coming with the resumption of tests. Right throughout the whole of the Soviet foreign policy, this apparent pattern of irrationality will be found, and it is intensely confusing to those who try to find some semblance of sanity in the dreadful dilemma in which we are placed. There is not the slightest doubt that, taking the Berlin issue on its own and taking the resumption of nuclear tests on its own, both point to the continuation of the Soviet ambition to preside over the darkness of the world. There is not the slightest doubt that the Soviet's ambition in Berlin to-day is to put out the light of liberty, to put out the light of justice, to put out the light of truth and to put out the light of love. All of these things must challenge the mind. To-day, listening to the honorable members for Wills and Hindmarsh, one came to the conclusion that all virtue was on their side and all sin was on our side. The responsibility resting on the shoulders of those who have created the dreadful dilemma in Berlin is very heavy. The responsibility on our shoulders equally is very heavy. Men of good will right throughout the world all want peace; but it would be very sad if the men of good will are ever persuaded to believe that peace with honour and with liberty can be put beyond our reach. {: #subdebate-36-0-s7 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** in his two statements in this House, that on Berlin on Thursday last and the one on nuclear tests yesterday, gave a comprehensive review of the histories of these two important questions and outlined his Government's attitude to them. The future of Berlin and the crisis which we are now facing and, indeed, through which we have lived since the Berlin airlift incident of 1948 is, of course, intimately bound up with the future of Germany, and the future of Germany is tangled up with the question of disarmament and nuclear tests. If these questions are not solved, then mankind will face a third world war and the possible extinction of human life on this planet. Nuclear war cannot be an instrument of policy because it is uncontrollable. A policy, to be effective, must be controllable and designed to lead to a definite result. War must be avoided but peace must be negotiated. There can be no surrender to threats or blackmail, but neither should there be any unwillingness on the part of any government to try to find a solution of the problems that beset us. Every situation has its background and its history. The tragic events of our times have their origins in the tragic happenings that followed World War I. The Treaty of Versailles contained the seeds of the Second World War because, unlike the settlements which concluded the Napoleonic Wars, made by the Congress of Vienna, there was no clear view on the part of the victors, as expressed by Clemenceau and Lloyd George, of the kind of Europe they wanted. They did not desire the triumph of any principle; they wanted only the punishment of a nation. The recognition of the principle of the legitimacy of a government served to bring France back into the community of Europe at the Congress of Vienna, whereas the Versailles Peace Treaty settlement was in part influenced by unwise commitments of Lloyd George at the "Coupon" election of 1918 "to exact the last penny we can out of Germany up to the limit of her capacity ", and " to expel and exclude all Germans from Great Britain ". **Mr. Speaker,** passions roused by the discussion of the settlement of Europe in such an atmosphere led ultimately to impossible demands for security and to unreal estimates of reparation. Germany paid in reparations between 1920 and 1931 no less than 21,585,000,000 gold marks, and the fantastic situation arose that Germany borrowed more than twice this sum from the United States in order that she might pay Great Britain and France and other countries, and re-establish her economy. What happened to Austria-Hungary is another matter, but those countries, too, became sources of weakness in the postWorld War I. period. The area has been crippled economically ever since. I have taken time to deal with some of the history of this period because it has a vital bearing on the events that led up to World War II. and the agreement of Potsdam and the present German situation. I want to say finally on this aspect of the question that the Allies blundered psychologically in dictating the Treaty of Versailles and not negotiating with the Germans for a real peace settlement. The fourteen points put forward by President Wilson were a splendid conception, particularly point 3, calling for " the removal as far as possible of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions "; point 4, calling for " adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced "; and point 5, calling for " free open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims ". The settlement of Versailles, which could not, and did not. last, suffered in that it ceased to command the moral consent or express the real convictions of the victors. The failure of the United States to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or to join the League of Nations, and the subsequent abandonment of part after part of the treaty by the other Allies, showed how unreal it was. Had the Allies been prepared to concede to Breuning, the last liberal Chancellor, by grace what they conceded to Hitler in the spirit of appeasement, the Weimar Republic might have been saved and World War II. avoided. But World War I., the " war to end war ", was succeeded by a more dreadful, more costly, more brutal and more devastating World War II., which, sixteen years after the overthrow of Hitler, has not yet been formally concluded by the negotiation of a peace treaty affecting the future of all Germany. There is a state of West Germany and a Soviet-occupied zone of East Germany, and the city of Berlin, set inside the area known as East Germany, the control of the city being governed by the occupation policy laid down by the Potsdam Agreement. Preparatory work for the policy began when the collapse of Germany became imminent in 1944. The Allies set up the European Advisory Commission. An agreement was concluded in London on 14th November, 1944, among the four Allied Powers. It sought to regulate " procedure for Allied control in Germany during the period in which Germany fulfils the fundamental requirements of unconditional surrender". It is perfectly true, as certain honorable members have pointed out, that after World War I. Germany was left more or less intact, whereas after World War II. Germany was dismembered. Under the agreement to which I have referred, " supreme authority " in Germany was to be " exercised by the CommandersinChief of the four Powers ". These are the words of the agreement itself. Jointly they formed the Allied Control Council. This council was " to ensure appropriate uniformity of action by the CommandersinChief in their respective zones of occupation ". The Control Council was to control the central administration. The direct administration of " Greater Berlin was to be separate ". The declaration of the four occupation powers of 5th June, 1945, announced their assumption of supreme power in Germany, but expressly it was declared that this would not imply annexation of Germany. It was stipulated that " the four Powers will hereafter determine the boundaries of Germany or any part thereof and the status of Germany or any area at present being part of German Territory ". This was to apply while the basic requirement of unconditional surrender was being carried out. It was also declared that " arrangements for the subsequent period will be the subject of a separate agreement ". The agreements concerning Berlin in the sense of occupation rights ante-dated Potsdam even before the delegates met for the Potsdam conference. The United States and British troops withdrew according to agreement from Mecklenburg, the Province of Saxony, Saxony itself and Thuringia, to the present demarcation line, and in return took over the three sectors reserved for them in Berlin, three sectors later to be called West Berlin, lt was an extremely bad bargain, but it destroys any doubts as to the moral and legal rights of the Western powers in Berlin. They have the right to be there. It might have been better had the agreement never been made. It might have been better if the territory that was surrendered had been held and Berlin as a city had remained intact in the Soviet zone. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Are you trying to shift the blame for the present situation on to the Western governments? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- It is just a matter for conjecture at this stage. Let me say in passing that what are called " free cities ", that is, cities politically isolated from surrounding territory, have always been a great source of mischief and danger. Danzig before 1939, Trieste since 1945 - the dispute there has since been settled - Berlin, and Jerusalem which at certain times since World War II. has been partitioned, are cases in point. In retrospect it looks as if it would have been better in the case of Germany if the Allies had stuck to the territories they had originally occupied. I have already mentioned that point. In all the history of foreign policy and foreign relations, **Sir, there** is no precedent for the present situation. For we are living with the possibility of total annihilation. Great cities can be reduced instantaneously to radio-active mudheaps. The basic Communist aim, however, while using the possession of these ultimate and absolute weapons as a measure of intimidation so as to induce negotiations and obtain concessions, is to take over the world intact. As a leading European Communist said, he " did not wish to put the last red flag on the remotest rubble ". The weapon of ideological penetration is used ceaselessly, and those whom Moscow regards as capable of using it are those who are totally convinced that the Communist idea alone is entitled to be heard. Otherwise, the Communists rely on the confusion of Western peoples for the advancement of their ideas. Recently a Soviet spokesman in London told an intellectual discussion group that " to speak of the co-existence of ideas was as absurd as to speak of frying snowballs ". The Communist strategy does not treat the world as being susceptible everywhere to the same formula. The Communists divide the world into three parts. First, there is the Communist bloc. Within this bloc there is no pretence of co-existence with people opposed to communism. Occasionally, for tactical reasons outside the bloc, there may be a thaw. As Mao Tsetung said, " Other flowers might blossom ". But the outburst of contempt for communism on the part of Chinese intellectuals and Chinese writers temporarily allowed to express themselves, frightened the Communist rulers of China, as it frightened the Communist authorities in Hungary, and as a capable statement of rejection of communism frightened the Soviet Union in the case of Pasternak. The reaction to the dissent of this one man was more hysterical than was the reaction of the Czars to ideas which challenged them. The first division of the world, then, in the Soviet view, consists of people to be controlled - the people of the Communist bloc. The second group consists of the newly independent and emerging nations. Even if independence is coming to them with sanity, order and dignity, they are . still to be represented in Soviet propaganda directed to these people as everywhere threatened by the West. Where there is conflict it is fanned. The Communist bid to win these nations is assisted by everything that is wrong in the West. If our real motive is the well-being of the newly emerging nations, the West has nothing to fear. If that is not our motive Communism will advance by default. What we do will speak louder than what we say. Independence, with sanity and dignity, as it came in *Morocco,* Tunisia and Nigeria, and ultimately in Cyprus, is a setback to Communist plans for ideological penetration. Running sores like Indo-China was, and Algeria is, constitute an opportunity for communism. The third bloc in Communist strategy is the Western world itself. At the moment the main emphasis appears to be on endeavouring to prove that communism leads to a superior standard of living. But this cannot be proved by words. Berlin and Germany constitute difficulties for the Communists because they prove the opposite. East Germany is an advanced industrial structure which yields a low standard of living for its people because its resources are drained in the interests of the Russian economy. And the dullness of East Germany as contrasted with West Germany is manifest to all the world. Pressure on the West to abandon Berlin, therefore, has a twofold significance for the Soviet. It gets rid of any inducement to citizens of East Germany to leave, and, at the same time, if Berlin is abandoned the Communist grip on the satellite peoples is tightened. Abandonment of Berlin would be a sign that the West was retreating, and this would damp down the aspirations of the satellite peoples, especially in Hungary, Poland and East Germany, for freedom. What we are witnessing is a display of Russian brinkmanship which, while making things very trying and difficult, will not matter much, provided that it does not end in war. Mankind hates the very thought of war, whether it is waged by nuclear or by conventional weapons. Men and women everywhere want peace. They want the statesmen of the world to meet in Summit meetings, at the United Nations and wherever something can be done to write the final chapter of World War II. If the German problem were an easy one it would have been settled long ago. But it is not easy, A re-united, re-militarized Germany could again disturb the peace of the world and cause even greater harm and loss than Germany caused by its precipitation ,of World Wars I. and II. - the wars in which Russia suffered most. The Prime Minister, in his statement, recognized the situation as it affects Russia. He recognized the fears which Russia legitimately entertains on this very question. Despite what some honorable members opposite have said, President Kennedy himself has recognized the legitimate aspirations of the Russian people in this regard. On the other hand, a dismembered Germany also threatens world peace. Perhaps the solution lies in greater European unity. In this connexion, the words of Adlai Stevenson, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and one of the leading advisers to President Kennedy, areworth noting because they are very apposite. In his latest work, "Putting First Things First", Adlai Stevenson stated - >In the past the North Atlantic nations dominated the world. But they could not control' themselves, and their great world wars have diminished the power and influence of Europe. Now Russia and the United States have suddenly emerged as the two dominant powers. But already the brief day of two-power domination is passing and new centres of power are rising from old ashes in Asia. By the end of the century China and India will be industrialised, and China's population will be close to a billion. Then, as Europe becomes more unified, it too will re-emerge as a great centre of power. I hope that developments in the European Common Market and other happenings that are taking place in Europe to-day will accentuate the move towards European political unity with the passing of the years. I return to the words of Adlai Stevenson, recognizing his position as an elder statesman in the United States of America, and believing that in this regard he speaks for the conscience of the world. He wrote - >Peace is the most imperative business in the world today. It is the world's most universal desire and most powerful force. The mass of humanity seems to understand better than its rulers the idiocy of war and its mortal danger to the human race. On the question of nuclear tests I should like to point out that on 31st March, 1958, the Supreme Soviet unanimously adopted a resolution on the "unilateral termination by the Soviet Union of atomic and hydrogen weapon tests ". The resolution expressed the hope that " the Parliaments of other States possessing atomic and hydrogen weapons will do everything to terminate test explosions of these weapons by their countries as well ". The resolution also stated - >In the event of other nuclear powers continuing these tests, the Government of the U.S.S.R. will naturally act as it sees fit as regards the testing of atomic and hydrogen weapons by the Soviet Union having regard to the interests of the security of the Soviet Union. The resolution further stated that the ending of nuclear tests was " being demanded by the overwhelming majority of the people of the world ". Of the utmost significance was the admission in the resolution that an increase in the concentration of radioactive elements in the air and the soil . . is poisoning the human organism and threatening the development of future generations ". And, finally, it declared that the unilateral action of the Supreme Soviet was " the first step towards finally ridding mankind of the threat of devastating atomic war ". Gromyko, as Foreign Minister, told the Supreme Soviet that Britain and America had " not shown themselves willing to agree to the final and unconditional ending of tests". They had, he said, "chosen the method of obstruction, piling one obstacle on top of another in the way of implementing the Soviet proposal ". Pursuant to this decision, **Mr. Khrushchev,** on 4th April, 1958, sent a letter to President Eisenhower and **Mr. Macmillan** conveying the text of the Supreme Soviet resolution and adding some comments of his own. After saying that experimental nuclear tests had " already now in peacetime become hazards to the health of innocent civilians in various countries ", he added - >To-day nuclear weapons are possessed by only three powers, the U.S.S.R., the U.S. and the U.K., which makes agreement on ending the tests relatively easy to achieve. If the tests are not ended now, other countries may also develop nuclear weapons soon, and then agreement to end tests will, of course, be much more difficult. Since that time France has exploded an atom bomb and other nations have indicated that they know how or will soon know how to explode them and so- the number of members of the nuclear club will increase. On 8 th April, 1958 President Eisenhower said - >It seems peculiar that the Soviet Union, having just concluded a series of tests of unprecedented intensity should now, in bold headlines, say that it will not test again, but add, in small type, that it reay test again if the U.S. carries out its longannounced and now imminent series of tests. The Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapon Tests, however, was held and sat throughout 1960. On 22nd August, 1959, Britain and the United States of America announced their willingness to suspend tests for a year and followed their words with appropriate action. It is clear, however, that the ban on tests has been largely no ban at all. The periods without tests appear simply to have been periods when preparation was being made for the next tests. President Eisenhower's point about the peculiar procedure of the Soviet in announcing unilateral cessation of tests immediately after a period of intense testing is now underlined by the equally peculiar procedure of resuming testing immediately after a unilateral declaration of intention to do so, and so rapidly after the declaration as to show that in essence there has been no ban on testing at all in the Soviet, but just merely a preparation for it. In spite of these disappointments, however, there are great gains to humanity in any cessation of testing and we must continue to strive and hope for a ban on all future tests. The Supreme Soviet resolution which I quoted earlier made a particular appeal to the neutralist bloc, to which it was probably directed. The neutralist bloc has shown clearly in this matter how much its member nations are in fact controlled by fear of the Soviet Union. They do not fear the United States. If the United States had broken the ban they would have been strong and forthright in their statements. As it was, with the possible exception of **Mr. Nehru,** their statements were weak compared with the principles they have declared. It is certain that Russia has lost prestige with the AfroAsian group by its resumption of tests. On the surface there would appear to have been a set-back to the Soviet aim to attract the neutralist world to communism, but underneath, the actual operation of this factor of fear should not be under-estimated. The neutralist bloc was the first to react when the world was shocked to know that the testing of nuclear and atomic bombs was to be resumed, and just at that time the neutralist nations were meeting in conference in Belgrade. Their first reaction was to pass a resolution uttering a strong protest against what had been done, and their second reaction was to decide to send President Soekarno of Indonesia and President Modibs Keita of Mali to interview President Kennedy, and to send Prime Minister Nehru of India and President Nkrumah of Ghana to interview **Mr. Khrushchev** in Moscow, to put both these leaders of world blocs the feelings of the neutralist nations. There were reactions throughout the whole world and of no less importance were the reactions which took place in Australia. I heard my colleague the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** misrepresented during this debate. He prepared a petition and secured the signatures of a number of very important and representative Australians. When he arrived in Canberra on Tuesday he took it to the Soviet Legation and lodged it there as a protest against the explosion of atomic bombs by the Soviet. Other honorable members also, who are very forthright in their desire for peace, have expressed their concern at the explosion of atomic bombs by any of the great powers. At least it can be said for the United States of America that whatever it has done up to date it has exploded its bombs in the laboratories and underground, and they have not fouled the atmosphere. I would like, finally, to refer to what the Prime Minister said concerning the 1948 airlift to Berlin. He said that a number of members of the Royal Australian Air Force took part in that airlift. These men were sent by the government of the day - the Chifley Government. **Mr. Chifley** was in Berlin during the airlift and on his return to London, according to a statement in the " Sydney Morning Herald " of 13th July, 1948, he said - We must hold on. The Australian Government fully approves the stand which the Allies have taken. It is the only one which can be taken. That is what I shall tell Australia. When he returned to Australia very soon afterwards he took the necessary action, and in the " Sydney Morning Herald " of 24th August, 1948, he publicly announced that the Federal Government would send 40 R.A.A.F. men, comprising ten Dakota aircrews, to Britain within a week to assist in flying supplies to blockaded Berlin. The offer which was made to Britain was gratefully accepted and it was stated, in this news item, with regard to these R.A.A.F. men - All have had war experience, several carry D.F.C. or D.F.M. decorations, and many took part in bombing raids over Germany. With the concurrence of honorable members and in order that the record might be complete on this subject, I will incorporate in " Hansard " an extract from what **Mr. Chifley** said in this House on 2nd December, 1948, on the question of the Berlin dispute. It is as follows: - {: .page-start } page 1252 {:#debate-37} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-37-0} #### BERLIN DISPUTE The Prime Ministers' Conference and the United Nations General Assembly have been held in an atmosphere of international tension, heightened by the situation in Berlin. I wish to review some of the events that led up to the approach made by the President of the United Nations General Assembly, **Dr. Evatt,** and the Secretary-General, **Mr. Trygve** Lie, to the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States. France and the Soviet Union. Background to the end of June, 1948. Following the failure of the Council of Foreign Ministers at the end of 1947 to reach agreement on the future of Germany, representatives of the three Western Powers, together with officials from Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, began discussions on Western Germany in March of this year. From the first, the Soviet Union has maintained that the holding of these discussions meant that the Western Powers were breaking the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements for the four-power government of Germany during the occupation period. On the 20th March, the representative of the Soviet Union on the Allied Control Council for Germany used this argument, together with the fact that his Government was not being informed of the progress of the London discussions, as an excuse for withdrawing from a meeting of the Council. Since that time the Council, together with its subordinate bodies, has been in abeyance. Withdrawal from the Allied Control Council was followed by the intensification of restrictions on the communications between Berlin and the Western Occupation Zones. Previously, the restrictions were not severe and caused inconvenience rather than genuine difficulty to the Western Powers. On the 6th June, the six-power discussions came to an end. Recommendations, including one for the establishment of a government for Western Germany, were submitted to participating governments and were accepted by all. The recommendations met with a strongly hostile reception from the Soviet radio and press which characterized them as an " illegal departure " from the principles of Yalta and Potsdam. The next important issue was that of currency reform. All four powers' have been agreed on the necessity for this. In the absence of agreement on a uniform method of introducing a new currency throughout Germany, the Western Powers introduced a separate currency in their zones of occupation on the 20th June. The Russian authorities, on the grounds of preventing currency smuggling into their zone and also of "technical difficulties" with the railway, immediately cut rail, road and canal communications between the Western Zones and Berlin. They followed this action with the issue of a new currency for their own zone and for Berlin. The Western Powers indicated they would have accepted the new Soviet currency for Berlin had the Russian authorities agreed to make its issue in Berlin subject to four-power control. This the Russians refused to do. The Western Powers then declared the new Soviet currency illegal in the Western sectors of Berlin and issued a new version of the Western currency for their sectors. This debate has served a useful purpose and has enabled honorable members to speak their minds without inhibitions. Some have stressed certain aspects of the question more than others. Some have expressed their fears on some aspects while others have concentrated on other points. I speak for my party, as I think the Prime Minister spoke for members of his party, when I say that we all want peace and that nobody wants war and nobody wants destruction. The most dreadful thing which could happen would be for the statesmen of the world to reveal a bankruptcy of initiative at this particular time and not find it possible to bring about a peaceful solution of the whole German problem and the problem of disarmament or at least to keep the situation sufficiently fluid so that ultimately such a solution will be found. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP -- The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** in the closing passages of his speech quoted a statement by the late **Mr. Chifley.** I think that as he did so there was a note of longing in his voice and a feeling of nostalgia for the good old days when the Australian Labour Party did have a policy on foreign affairs. But that is referring to days twelve years in the past. The House listened very attentively to what the Leader of the Opposition said on behalf of the Australian Labour Party as it exists to-day. I think that one element which was missing from the honorable gentleman's speech was a clear and definite declaration of where the Australian Labour Party stands on any of these important issues. The honorable gentleman, with a good deal of skill, with moderation and, I think, by and large, with exactness described a number of situations which we face. But could any one detect at any point a statement of what the Labour Party considers should be done about those situations which he recognized? I thought that his speech resembled a string of beads without any string. I will illustrate what I mean by going over his speech. I take as the first bead that well-rounded, somewhat dull account which he gave of the Treaty of Versailles and the events following the First World War. There was nothing exceptionable. Indeed, as a piece of information it was an interesting item for a speech in this House. Then, completely separated from his former contribution, he gave us a passage about the situation in East Germany, West Germany and Berlin - again accurately described and nicely rounded but rather dull and of doubtful significance. He went on and produced a little gem of wisdom in recounting the fact that free cities are usually a centre of trouble. Passing on from that, he produced another little gem of wisdom which 1 jotted down. He said that we were living with the possibility of total annihilation. He went on to discuss with a good deal of authority and a good deal of accuracy what he described as the " basic Communist aim ". He talked several minutes about the basic Communist aim and Communist strategy and the. way in which the Communists varied their methods to suit different circumstances. By and large, I think that most members on this side of the House would be in agreement with his diagnosis and with his description. Then the Leader of the Opposition passed, again with no connecting link, to the question of nuclear tests and told us what **Mr. Gromyko, Mr. Khrushchev** and **Mr. Eisenhower** had said. He added as his own contribution another statement with which we all agree - that nuclear weapons are pretty dreadful things. And that was his speech. I describe it again as a string of beads without any string, ls that all the honorable gentleman has to offer on behalf of the Labour Party? I will go back to his speech and repeat some significant sentences from his description of the state of the world to-day. 1 have already repeated his gem of wisdom that we are living with the possibility of total annihilation. He also said that great cities could be reduced instantaneously to radioactive mudheaps. Later, he also said that the basic Communist aim was to take over the world intact. At another point he said that the Soviet relied on the confusion of Western peoples for the advancement of its ideas. He referred to the fact that men and women everywhere want peace. In respect of nuclear tests, he said that we must continue to strive and hope for a ban on all future tests. If he sincerely believes all this, as I am sure he does, what does he propose to do about it? It is all right to tell the people of Australia that this troubled situation exists. But do the people of Australia not want something more than a mere description? Do they not want to know where the Labour Party stands and on which side it will come down? This is not a matter of theory. It is not sufficient merely to discuss the world situation in an academic way. This is a question concerning the security of Australia and the future of the Australian people. On a question of this kind the Australian people want to know where all parties in this Parliament come down; which side are they on? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- The Leader of the Opposition made a clear statement on the West's entitlement to be in Berlin. **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Order!** The Minister will be heard in silence. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK: -- It is good to know that the Leader of the Opposition has the reinforcement of the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** on one point at least - he believes that the Western powers have a right to be in Berlin. I pass now to the general situation in Berlin and in Germany because it illustrates a point which I think is important. Basically, why does this situation exist in Germany? I do not refer to the historical background or to the sequence of events which led up to the situation; I refer to the underlying cause. Surely the underlying cause is the existence in the world of nationalism, including Soviet nationalism, and the existence of Communist imperialism. If those two things had not existed at the end of the war, there would have been a peace settlement with the vanquished countries and there would have been a united Germany to-day. But because of nationalism and national interests on both sides, and because of Soviet Communist imperialism, that peace settlement cannot be brought about. I would say that it is quite futile to hope for any sort of settlement in Berlin until there has been a peace settlement in Germany. Some people seem to think that Berlin itself is a contributing cause to the division of Germany. But if one looks at it realistically one realizes that the only reason why there is a situation in Berlin at all is that Germany is still divided and that there is no peace treaty with Germany. If a peace treaty were concluded there would be no Berlin crisis and no Berlin situation of any kind. Why has no peace treaty been concluded with Germany? Why is this great country still divided in two? It is because it would be against Soviet national interests to have a united, single Germany. The only terms on which the Soviet Union would tolerate a united independent Germany would be if that Germany were a satellite to Russia so that the effective frontier of the iron curtain were moved westward as far as the Rhine. Under those circumstances, the Soviet Union would readily agree to the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany. Of course, that is a prospect which, in the interests of the German people and of ourselves, we of the Western powers cannot tolerate for a moment. That is why the German situation remains unsolved and will continue to remain unsolved as long as national interests are being advanced in that way. The way in which Communist imperialism is adding to the long enduring Russian national interests is helping to aggravate the situation. Communist imperialism, using different methods in different parts of the world, has relentlessly, and without ceasing for a moment, continued to pursue its objective of bringing countries under subjugation. Our difficulty in contending with that sort of thing and the world power situation with which we have to grapple is not novel. Ever since national states emerged, the statesmen of the world, the armies of the world and the peoples of the world have had to grapple with and endure such power contests as this. But what is so difficult and what calls for such resolution on out part in these times is the fact that, in pursuit of its nationalist aims and its Communist imperialist aims, the Soviet Union has turned its back on those moral principles and on those standards of conduct which were once thought honorable among nations. I should like to give a few instances of that. I could refer, in starting, to the pact between Stalin and Hitler during the very course of the war as clear evidence of the approach of the Communist state to international conduct, but I will come to the post-war years. I want to refer to something with which I had some personal association immediately after the war. In a book written by **Mr. James** F. Byrnes, former United States Secretary of State, that gentleman refers to the circumstances in which President Truman and **Mr. Churchill** reached the vital decision to launch the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. A vital decision - a decision that was taken reluctantly. Up to that time Great Britain and America had carried out experiments conjointly and produced the bomb in great secrecy, and had come to the point where they had the bomb read to use. They decided to use it, and at the last moment, as **Mr. Byrnes** recounts it, they thought that they owed it to their ally, the Soviet Union, to inform it of their intention, although the Soviet was not a party to the secrets of atomic research at that stage. Byrnes recounts that President Truman told Stalin and was surprised by the fact that Stalin seemed disinterested. The war ended, and very shortly after the war, recognizing the true force of this new weapon, the powers which had developed it set up, within the ambit of the United Nations, an Atomic Energy Commission which was designed to produce a system which would control or ban the use of atomic weapons. It was my good fortune to be Australian representative on that commission and to serve for a period of several months in that position. The information we had at that time was that the Soviet Union did not have the atomic secret, and the United States Government in that belief came forward with all good intentions and in the utmost sincerity with an offer to the Russians. It said, " if a system of international control with inspection is devised we will reveal the atomic secret. We will hand over all the knowledge that we have of the power that is in our hands." The Soviet Union would not play. The Soviet Union would not respond, and for month after month we wrestled in that commission puzzled by the failure of the Soviet Union to respond to what seemed a very generous offer on the part of the United States of America to give up something which it had and which we believed no one else had. Never during all those months was it revealed to us that because of the traitorous acts of certain scientists in war-time the Soviet Union itself was already busily working against time, as speedily as it could in the Urals, in order to get its weapon to the stage where it could match the advantage that the United States of America had with power of a similar kind. One thinks back to the period immediately after the war when in the Security Council of the United Nations the hopes of the world and the thoughts of the world were set on the possibility of great power co-operation. The world hoped that those who had been allies in the war - the three great powers - would also be allies in peace, and so secure peace for the peoples of the world. Yet a few years later we discovered that throughout the whole of that period when in the Security Council the Soviet Union's representatives were making a show of co-operating within the United Nationsto establish an international system of security the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was busily building up in secret a whole network of mutual assistance pacts in Eastern Europe and was laying the foundations of the whole pattern of the Eastern European bloc which we now speak of as lying behind the Iron Curtain. With its tongue in its cheek the Soviet Union was pretending to co-operate with the othernations in the Security Council while it was taking other measures - measures which depended on its own military strength - to maintain its security. If we come tomore recent times we see the situation applying to nuclear tests. In 1958, and again to-day the Soviet Union has pretended to enter discussions for the banning of nuclear tests, but it is quite apparent that throughout the period of the discussions it is itself continuing to plan for the making of further nuclear tests. It is that line of conduct allied, I think, with the ruthlessness and fervour and the single-mindedness of Communist imperialism, that makes things so difficult in the world to-day. In this situation we have a very simple touchstone, and this touchstone is our national interest as Australians. Every one of us who gives a moment of thought tothe matter - and I cannot enlarge on this point at the moment - knows that in Australia to-day, because of our isolation in this part of the world, because of the comparative smallness of our population, because of our remoteness from those who are our allies, and because of the great forces that are stirring in the world, we are in a position of peculiar danger, and' the generation that comes after us will have to struggle hard, will have to struggle fiercely and struggle with greater devotion and dedication than any previous generation of Australia's sons if we are to continue as Australia and as a place where Australians live. We all know that. There is no member of the House who would deny it. In those circumstances, we have to look narrowly to our national interest and ask ourselves: " How best do we serve the national interest? Where do we find our friends? Who are the ones on whom we can depend? " Then we must come out boldly and say, " That is the side we are on ". I think that the people of Australia are waiting for the Labour Party to say which side it really is on. I think our hope for security and peace is our continued alliance with our partners in Seato, and, beyond Seato, with our friends in Nato, and that without that we have little prospect of national survival. In conclusion, I should like to turn to another statement that the Leader of the Opposition made in his speech. He was talking about the uncommitted nations. I doubt whether there is such a thing in the world to-day as an uncommitted nation. We are all committed to some extent or another. We cannot stand aside and let these great world events sweep past and pretend that they will not touch us, and that we will not have to get into the water. The Leader of the Opposition, talking about uncommitted nations, said, I think rather critically of them, " Their statements " - the statements of the uncommitted nations - " were weak compared with the principles they have declared ". I think that that is a perfect description of the honorable gentleman's own speech - weak compared with the principles he has declared, and insufficient to meet the situation which he himself described. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- I congratulate the Minister on making a speech from the script given to him by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** All the points he made were ones which he had the opportunity of studying by the courtesy of my leader. Everywhere else, when speaking in his own terms, he was wearing a necklace without strings. So that he may not be caught in a fan dancing act I shall leave that question there, and deal with the problems that I want to put before this House. In this matter of the bomb, which has been discussed so exhaustively in the House, I most emphatically do not stand for the bomb droppers or bomb testers wherever they are. I do not care whether it is a clean bomb or an underground bomb or one discharged in the atmosphere. It is all so inconceivably and so wretchedly and so wickedly wrong. I cannot join in the childish argument about who did it first. Was it ours or theirs? I only know that bomb tests will destroy life if persisted in, and if continued will destroy all life. That is the situation we face, and whether it is Tweedledum or Tweedledee who perpetrated this situation is not the issue. The question is, how we are going to deal with it. I can perhaps understand dimly from reading the transcripts and the newspapers and generally trying to get an assessment of this testing of nuclear bombs, the thought processes that led to it, but I can neither condone nor forget it.whether practised by one side or the other. I have been a pacifist. I am still a pacifist. Within the bounds of my own party I am fully entitled to be a pacifist, and within the bounds of my country and of public thought I still am. I know that I get a lot of stupid criticism from people, but I still pound the cobblestones in Sydney and Melbourne if required in the march for peace, and I find nothing incongruous in doing so. Nobody misleads me in these things although they may think that they do. I have an inner conviction in this matter, and my line is clear and I shall pursue it. You talk about the two Berlins. What about the two kinds of peace? If you are liberal-minded you are a Communist or a red or something else. If you believe in peace generally you get confused with the propaganda. What is the use of locking up Bertrand Russell and his followers? The bolt or bar that can lock up an idea has not yet been made; and never will be made. The force of an idea has more power than 10,000 atom bombs. That was the case with Christianity in a pagan world, and that will be the case for peace when we all are convinced of where we are going and do not muddy the stream by saying to others, "Yah, Yah, you are following the wrong line ", and so on ad nauseam. The point is that you cannot kill an idea, and the spectacle of an 89 years old man being locked up in a musty old English gaol for daring to walk somewhere is something for which we should be thoroughly ashamed. The honorable member for Griffith **(Mr. Chresby),** who is interjecting, should keep his smears to himself. He would never get near enough to that great man to touch the hem of his coat because he would spurn the honorable member with a side kick if he knew that he was there. The world problems to which the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** referred, so lopsidedly in my view, are in fact the outcome of power politics on both sides of fear, hatred and misunderstanding. I was deeply touched by the words of the honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin),** a friend and colleague of mine for many years. He has been to the United Nations and has sat. in at a meeting of the Security Council. He has seen the slow and tortuous machine of peace working against the sharp, cunning and jagged machinery of war. When he tells us that there are, and always have been, suspicions and intransigence on one side, and precipitate action on the other side, you may be sure that he is right because he has seen these things. So when one asks, "Who is right? Are they both wrong? Can we expect nothing of Europe? ", from whom shall we obtain the answers? This is a question we must ask ourselves. We read the propaganda from each side and become confused and desperately unhappy. Tn my view the Soviet explanation lacks a proper appreciation of world opinion of what it has done. The American answer is unctious and self-righteous. We want to know where we stand, and where the children who will come after us will stand, in regard to this world problem. T have referred to what the Russians have said and T have referred to what the Americans have said. Let me now come to our *own* leader. The Prime Minister of Australia said, " T stand on the side of the free world ". Good luck to him. But where does the free world stand? It stands facing three directions. It is obvious that President Kennedy does not want war. Brinkmanship and the other curious words that are created in Madison-avenue, the home of the slogan and propaganda, may be all right, but nevertheless, somewhere in his spirituality President Kennedy has a horror of war because he was a serviceman. But I believe that de Gaulle wants war because he wants to see the resurgence of France. He dropped a bomb. Curiously enough, it had no fall-out and no publicity value at the time; we heard very little about it. But Macmillan, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, wants no war and he has said so. I should like to see a fairly reasonable sculpture of the Prime Minister of this country standing with the free world facing three ways. Let us be realistic and not sardonic. This is one of our most bitter and agonizing problems. When we talk of our commitments, what we are doing and what we can do, there must be within us somewhere some fervour; and every one in this House knows it. We are suffering In the same kind of microcosm that is afflicting Europe. We cannot get together to bring peace in our time. Some one thinks you should not do it this way and someone thinks you should not do it that way, so you cannot obtain unanimity here even in this debate which has been rather interesting because there has been some measure of understanding of the problem. However, I believe that the answer will eventually come from Europe but not until Europe is committed to world thought which can be obtained only in the United Nations. Where do we go after the Europeans, the Americans and others have boggled this problem for so long? We must go to the uncommitted nations, those which have courage enough to speak out as a force for world peace. Where do we find this moral force that my leader and others on this side of the chamber have spoken of so frequently? Let us search our hearts before we start going off about the other fellow. Do we find this moral force, this integrity, this decency in this free world, in the excesses of the Congo, the bloody horror of Angola, the butchery of Bizerta, the exploding bomb in the Sahara which no one noticed at the time? First let us look at the mote in our own eye; then we may get some world peace. But when you look at the flamboyant propaganda of each side you see that we have lost the. way and will continue to lose the way unless we check our own movements, because we are united in the desire for peace. I suggest that the moral force, the third great force for world peace, can be found wherever men have moral force and integrity. Plenty of voices are raised, but are they effectual? Do they speak as individuals or nations? Let me suggest, as has been suggested previously by honorable members, one voice that has been raised. It is the voice of Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, speaking at the conference of uncommitted nations at Belgrade. He has been denigrated in some places and over-praised in others. Let no one say that those nations are run by Communists or that they are auxiliary or ancillary to the Soviet Union. This is what Nehru had to say - >I am amazed and surprised that rigid and proud attitudes are taken by great countries. If he had cared to, he might have said " by great colonial countries "; but he was too charitable. He continued - >They are too high and mighty to negotiate for peace. It is not their pride that is involved; it is the future of the human race. Nothing is more important than this issue of war and peace. Everything else is secondary. How can any one say that that was a statement without force and strength? It cannot be said that it did not light a light in the dark places of this world. He is a courageous and noble man. He gives me hope. These great people give hope as they do the great people whom I respect and admire give me hope. The voices of Canon Collins, the Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, London, and Bertrand Russell give me hope. So did the voice of His Holiness the Pope when he said recently in a studied and sober-minded statement that peace transcends all other issues. That is something to ponder upon. The choir of peace does not consist of political parties but of people who want to preserve the world. Here is another interesting point about us who live in our own hemisphere in our own ocean and in our own country. What can we do for peace? Where are our immediate allies? They are not in Iceland, New York or Berlin. They are right around us - the uncommitted nations; the former colonial nations. They have done a very fine job in this matter. They have not been coerced. The honorable member for Banks **(Mr.** Costa), one of my very fine friends whos electorate is close to mine, recently visited the United Nations. On his return he told us in a most significant and useful statement that he had been deeply impressed with the Afro-Asians. They were thinking for themselves. They were in nobody's pocket. They were not being trapped by power politics and they were a moderating force in discussions at the United Nations. How right he was then. How right he is now. Would it not be a devastating footnote to contemporary events if the people about whom we speak so patronizingly as those whom we must liberate some day might not, by their decency, honesty and uncommitted attitude save us from one of the most terrible thing, that could happen to us - disaster fro. atomic bombs? We should be mercilessly realistic in this matter. We who are de facto neutral by ou isolation, our small population and ou: vulnerability, should keep our eyes on the neutral bloc and the policy of disengagement which, as a moral force, might in the long run be better than treaties, because treaties have been tora up. What happened to the Potsdam treaty? It is non est; it does not exist. What about the instrument of surrender which was signed in Yoka.hama Bay by our own late Fie Marsha] Blarney? That is no longe a valid document. It does not exist. It has been superseded by another instrument of convenience. When we talk of treaties we should talk rather of moral force and the right and desire to do these things. That is the big point about peace that transcends the attitudes of honorable members on the other side of the House. I shall return for the few moments at my disposal to what the Prime Minister said about Berlin - a weary story, as Omar Khayyam said, " About it and about; but ever more came out by the same door wherein I went ". He opened no door for us in our desire for peace and he carried no conviction, as indeed the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen),** who is sitting at the table, carried no conviction. Here are a few points to ponder, and even the benighted member from South Australia, the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes),** should listen to this and learn. What inaccuracies are peddled as history! It was H. G. Wells who said ^Beware the poison that is history. Try and delve to get the facts ". Here are the facts. To begin with, it was not the Western allies who wanted an integrated Germany. It was the Russians. Talk of unification is just another of the cold war techniques of one side or the other. Russia wanted a completely unified Germany so that she could make a socialist republic of it. Not being able to do that, the Russians changed their view. Churchill emphatically wanted to cut Germany to ribbons. He certainly did not envisage a united Germany. The old warrior said - and I quote from his memoirs and his speech at Teheran, on 1st December, 1943 - >Then I should like to detach Bavaria, Wurttem..'.*, the Palatinate, Saxony and Baden. Whereas i should like to treat Prussia sternly, I should ike to make it easier for the second group. The old European idea of cutting up Europe, of wrapping new maps around old bodies, of digging up nations by the roots and then claiming to have won a war or a peace! The Americans of those days wanted Germany to be an agricultural country. The phrase used by Cordell Hull was "a potato field". Cordell Hull said in his memoirs - >As for Germany, the President- that is, Roosevelt - paid categorically he favoured the division of the country into three or four states, and he agreed with Churchill on the dismemberment of Germany. But in the Allied mind in those days there -vas no thought of a resurgent Germany, a strong industrial Germany, a Germany with a great war potential, and that is the thing that worries me. Germany was to be agricultural. There were to be no Krupps, no I.O. Farbens, no Thyssens, no Raschs or Dinkelbarchs. There was to be no great industrial potential. It was to be an agricultural country or nothing. It was only with the advent of John Foster Dulles and brinkmanship that the policy switch occurred. The British thought the same way in the early days. Germany had not won the war and there was no great psychological march forward for the Germans until they became useful in the cold war against Russia. I wonder what Churchill thinks to-day. Where has the integration policy taken us? To-day, the panzers conduct manoeuvres on the sacred soil of England and young German soldiers are garlanded with flowers by the local girls as they drink bock beer in the village pubs. There are Polaris submarines in Holy Loch. Can it be that the old man who saved his country from the Germans by a majestic feat of arms has been conquered by Marshall Aid, Nato and the Common Market? There are a lot of quered by Marshall Aid, Nato and the any of them are Communists. They just have a view of their own. Russia may be more realistic than we are in seeking to keep the Germans down. Those who scream to-day for a united Germany should remember that Germany was only a united country for about 75 years. First, it was part of the Holy Roman Empire which is said to have been neither holy, Roman nor an empire. In its united form, Germany produced three of the greatest tyrants of history, Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II., and Adolf Hitler, and caused two great world wars - not much of a beginning to go open-armed about, but we have decided, for the sake of peace, that all must join in the communities of peace. But an over-stated, over-sentimental approach to Germany can be more dangerous that the old horror tactics of Versailles and the other things so cleverly brought out by the Leader of the Opposition. West Germany has become a successful country with hard currency, but the Potsdam Treaty has gone. Just as Bismarck said, " A coalition against the German State is the thing I dread and dream about ", Adenauer said, " Potsdam is what I dream about, and what I dread ". And it came to pass that Potsdam was dissipated before his very eyes. Politics in this country are so tough that if you say things you are liable to be misunderstood, but let me quote something that was said about Adenauer and the future of Germany by a great British leader, **Mr. Aneurin** Bevan - >Adenauer and those who are backing him, including the Nato powers, are deep in their hearts laughing at German unification and are again playing an old game which consists in setting against the Soviet Union all that part of Germany which finds itself under their influence. It is the policy which Chamberlain expected from Hitler and we all know what it led to. There is a note of warning, apart from the urgency of the bomb and the question of the unification of Germany. It is worth noting also that we can make the same terrible mistake about Germany as we did after World War I. We are farthest away from the scene and least informed, but if one listens to the honorable member for Mackellar and the honorable member for Moreton, we are the rowdiest and most intransigent about the Berlin problem. I doubt if either of them, in his hatred, can see anything beyond the haze of his own imagination. The English people take a much more moderate view. You have only to read references to this matter in the press to learn that. I have not the time to read them, but I commend them to honorable members. They are not saying what the Prime Minister says. The newspapers are asking, " Why did Russia do it, and why did the United States do it? " I return to the comment of my colleague the honorable member for Wills, who said in effect, " Let us be starkly and brutally honest on this matter. Are the Berlin crisis, 2,000,000 people and 300 square miles of land worth a third world war? " Of course not! Let us forget the propaganda of the Prime Minister's speech and quote from authorities close to the scene of the trouble. I am confident that a reference to such authorities will disclose the truth of the case made on this side of the House. Let us have done with this manufactured crisis. Surely it is not worth the horror of total war and bombing. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wight: --Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP -- I have listened with interest and considerable surprise to the acclamation from the Labour benches which greeted the conclusion of the speech of the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen).** The honorable member for Parkes, early in his speech, proclaimed himself to be a pacifist. I do not pretend that I can understand the mind of a pacifist but I can respect the pacifist. I sat in this House with the late Maurice Blackburn. He was a pacifist. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- He was a great man. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- I think he was a great man. I understood and respected him. But Maurice Blackburn was an objective Labour man. When he said he was a pacifist, he lived up to it. To-night we have heard a spokesman for the Labour Party declaring himself to be a pacifist, but he is apparently a pacifist against every friend of Australia. There is not a friend of Australia which was not maligned in the twentyminute address which the honorable member gave to-night. He used such terms as, "The unctuous self -righteousness of the Americans ", and " Madison Avenue, New York, the home of propaganda "- {: #subdebate-37-0-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! If the honorable member for Lalor continues to interject I shall have to take action. I am warning him for the last time. He must remain quiet. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- The honorable member for Parkes also said that de Gaulle, the great leader of resurgent France, unashamedly wants war. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- That is what the economists said. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- I am talking about what your colleague says. He condemned Cordell Hull, he condemned Roosevelt, he condemned Churchill, he condemned every one of our allies, past and present. But, in the twenty minutes of his impassioned address did he utter one word against Communist Russia, the greatest tyrant and the greatest threat to peace of our time? No. He uttered not one word, not one syllable against Communist Russia. If his is the attitude of a pacifist, then I hope he is a lone pacifist on the face of the earth. I can understand a man who stands for certain principles saying where he stands, but for an honorable member to stand in this Parliament and declare himself to be a pacifist, and then to take the opportunity to condemn and malign every friend and ally of this Australian nation is shameful, and I hope that such an incident will not be repeated in this place. I say frankly that I was distressed to hear the acclaim from the Labour benches at the end of his address. This is intended to be a debate about the circumstances in Berlin and the resumption of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union. These are compelling issues for the world. The situation in Berlin, of course, is most menacing. The resumption of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union has provoked the warning by our friend, the United States of America, that this may lead her to the necessity to resume not atmospheric tests but underground, and therefore safe, tests. All this revives the fear and the danger to humanity. It projects before the world the issues of peace and war, issues which are capable, apparently, of being ignited in the circumstances of Berlin and all the dangers that are implicit in the resumption by great powers of the testing of nuclear weapons. This discussion has been brought before the Parliament by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** and the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** in acquiescence. Here is a debate not provided against the will of the Opposition but to a large extent provided at the request of the Leader of the Opposition. Here is an opportunity for this Parliament in discussion to shape the opinion of the Australia people. Surely it would be greatly to the advantage of the Australian people if there could be evolved from this discussion in the National Parliament a coherent and, as far as it can be achieved, a unified point of view of the Australian people on these problems which are not problems peculiar to any political party - not even problems peculiar to any nation - but above all problems of all mankind. Historically, war has been fought by us and our forebears to secure freedom and to preserve it. War to-day is no longer thought of merely in terms of preservation of freedom. It is an issue now that raises the question of the extinction of mankind. Surely we should devote ourselves to this kind of discussion in an effort to sort out where Australia as a unit nation should stand on these great matters. It is proper that Government and Opposition should thrash out their differences and seek to win in an ordinary debate; but there is no future for the Australian people in one side winning such a debate as this. What we want is to get the point of view of the Australian people, to be satisfied it is right and to influence others to the same point of view. This is really a great occasion in the Parliament. It would be a pity if from it flows an exacerbation of divisions within the thinking of the Australian people. It could be regarded as successful only if the discussion consolidated the Australian point of view, for these are, as I have said, trans.cendingly important issues. The whole question of the sanctity of treaties is, of course, raised. There can be no hope for peace in the world if there is no respect for the pledged word of nations given to each other in signed documents. If we hope to have rule by law and order to replace the imposition of force, documents that are agreed upon must be respected. The issue in Berlin, of course, surrounds the abandonment by the Soviet of the agreement that the four powers shall remain in Berlin and each shall have free access to Berlin. We as an Australian people joined in the fight against Hitler's Germany which aimed to enslave large sectors of the human race. We as a nation, without any division in this Parliament, approved of the agreement between the Allies for the occupation of Berlin and we approved of the objectives that were in mind when Berlin was occupied. The objectives, of course, were in two phases. The short-term objective was to ensure that there was not a prompt reestablishment of an aggressive, militaristic Germany; but there was a long-term objective of holding the peace there until such time as there emerged within the German state a government pledged to the cause of peace, not to the cause of conquest and war. The first phase has been successful. There has not emerged in the short term a German government bent on revenge and conquest again. There has, on the contrary, emerged a genuine West German Government intent upon playing its part in bettering the lot of mankind and in preserving peace in this world. Here we have apparently succeeded in the conversion of a former enemy only to find that the threat to peace comes from a former ally. This is a heart-breaking circumstance, but we had better look it squarely in the eye. The battle for the minds of men, to use an oft-repeated phrase, still proceeds and hundreds of millions of people are as yet not allied in any military sense or finally committed to what I might call either of the great power blocs. These people must be forming an opinion to-day on the resumption by the Soviet Union of nuclear tests. Surely what we want them to conclude is that those who have preached the propaganda of peace and practised the preparation for war should be condemned. **Mr. Khrushchev,** on behalf of the Soviet Government, has stumped the world and through every medium of propaganda has propounded the doctrine of peace, advancing it by alleging that every one else is a war-monger. After Russia had concluded a series of nuclear tests, it declared that it would cease these tests and to that extent improve the chances of the world settling down to a peaceful discussion of the termination of atomic armament and eventually achieving complete military disarmament. Now we find that while these arch-propagandists of the phoney cause of peace have been stumping the world and influencing hundreds of millions of people to believe they are genuine, they must have been working like beavers to develop more atomic weapons in preparation for the contingency of an atomic war. The important question at the moment is whether the world at large is going to condemn this kind of callous conduct. When the leader of the Opposition made his speech this evening he spoke objectively, and I think he gave accurate historical facts, but I did not discern him giving a lead in this regard. However, I do not want to break my own rule by attempting to criticize the Leader of the Opposition. I simply want to say that what we should try to do is to achieve a unanimity of view within this country. We can then hope to give a lead to many other countries, and we can eventually hope for condemnation by all countries other than Communist countries of this false line of conduct which involves preaching peace and declaring that others are war-mongers, while at the same time preparing for war. Being ready, at a moment's notice, and for some reason that I do not pretend to be able to state with any certainty, to proceed with the most intensive programme of atomic weapons explosions that mankind has ever known. There have never before been so many successive atomic explosions as have taken place during the last weeks. They have occurred practically daily. Is this Parliament not of the unanimous opinion that this is wrong? {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- Of course it is! {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- Then why has it not been said more forcefully that it is wrong? I hope that before this evening is out there will be revealed a greater strength of opinion within this Parliament, particularly on the part of the honorable members opposite, to whom I now address my remarks exclusively. I hope that we will see a greater strength of feeling exhibited at this terrible action that has been taken. I hope we will have a unanimous expression of the view that there should be a marshalling of world opinion, so that it may become evident that while the Communist countries may gain in military strength from their secret preparations, they will do so at the expense of losing the respect of hundreds of millions of free people throughout the world. That is the result we want to flow from this kind of a debate, and 1 believe it is the only real contribution towards the establishment of peace that this kind of debate can make. I believe that a unanimous and forceful expression of opinion along these lines in the national Parliament of a country so widely respected as I am sure Australia is would not be without its impact on other countries. I am sure that nowhere in the world is the good faith of the Australian nation doubted. We do stand for peace. We do want peace. We have no aims of conquest. We have no aims of expansion. We have no wish to indoctrinate any one else or to enslave or dominate any other people. This is a peaceful country. That fact is recognized. If a country which is so respected, and which obviously has no ambition to harm or gain from other people, can express a unanimous view through its national Parliament, it can make a real contribution towards the marshalling and strengthening of opinion in other countries. We must have a loud enough voice in the world to let other nations hear that we believe free people cannot be frightened by the kind of action that has been taken, and that they cannot be blackmailed by it. So far, there has not been a sufficiently strong expression of view along these lines from members of the Opposition, but I hope there is still enough of the night left for us to hear some stronger expressions. The Prime Minister has shown very clearly that the Western powers have a right to be in Berlin, a right which they have assumed by agreement with our great wartime allies, the Russians. That agreement still stands. There has been no abrogation or abandonment of it on our side. The Prime Minister has produced the relevant documents and made them available to the whole Parliament. We want to let the world know that we stand by those who have these rights. We do not want to have emphasis placed on the fact that there is at least one member of the Parliament who, as I had the unhappy duty to point out, has devoted his time to maligning our friends, while saying nothing whatever against these people who have behaved so very badly indeed. That, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** is all I want to say on this matter. I do believe that there are some quite rare occasions on which it is the duty of the Parliament not to seek to divide public opinion but to seek to unite it and so, through this united public opinion, to influence others throughout the world. This is one such occasion, provided jointly, by agreement, by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that before the night is over a greater contribution will be made towards exhibiting unanimity within the Parliament on these great issues. {: #subdebate-37-0-s5 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** when the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** commenced his speech I thought he was about to propound some plan for saving Berlin, in the ringing tones in which people used to advocate the relief of Mafeking. But it was not long before we realized that all the sound and fury signified nothing. He soon subsided into a review, in a trite manner, of the situation in a divided Berlin, and the Russian resumption of nuclear weapons testing. The House is debating two papers which the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** presented on these subjects. The papers consisted of an analysis, covering the last three or four years, of the two matters with which we are concerned, and a statement of the Western view. The Prime Minister did not do anything towards marshalling world opinion or uniting opinion within this country. He gave no lead on these matters at all. But the opportunity for marshalling world opinion on them is at hand. Next week the General Assembly of the United Nations will be meeting in New York. We will be represented there and, as is customary, there will be observers from both sides of this Parliament. The proper place to marshal world opinion on these two matters is in the General Assembly of the United Nations, as was done on the last occasion when there was similar trouble over Berlin. This was done in 1948, largely on the initiative of the Australian Labour Government, and of the Minister for External Affairs in the Chifley Government, **Dr. Evatt,** who was then President of the General Assembly. More recently, in 1958, when there was at last a ray of hope in connexion with nuclear testing, and the three countries which then possessed nuclear bombs agreed to suspend testing, the conduct of those countries was approved in the General Assembly. In the following year, when it was expected that France might test her puny bombs, again the General Assembly dealt with the matter. Next week is the time when these matters should be dealt with. We have had an opportunity, or we would have had it if the Prime Minister had given a lead, to unify Australian public opinion for an approach to the United Nations on both the matters with which we are now concerned. They have been dealt with in the past by the General Assembly with encouraging results. It is the only authority that can deal with them effectively in the future. I have suggested the way to unite Australia and the way to marshal world opinion. The position in Berlin is, in some respects, novel, and the Western countries were caught flat-footed with regard to it. In 1948 the Russians aimed at keeping the United Kingdom, France and the United States out of West Berlin, but they failed. Australia played her part in seeing that the methods adopted by the Russians in 1948 failed. We provided Royal Australian Air Force aircrews and aircraft, and we raised the matter in the United Nations General Assembly. But, this year, the Russians have aimed at keeping the people of East Berlin out of West Berlin, and they may succeed. The Russians have tried a new tactic, and neither Australia nor any other Western country has yet suggested any solution. All the belligerence which has come from Government supporters in this debate does not prove that they are patriotic or farsighted. They have no balance in these matters. One does not have to be belligerent or aggressive to show that one is a patriot. There is no question about what will happen if forces from Russia or East Germany enter West Berlin: There will be war. And Australia, which has a mission in West Berlin, will be involved in that war. If, on the other hand, the forces of the West were to enter East Berlin, again there would be war. But does anybody expect that the Russians and the forces of East Germany will enter West Berlin? Is it proposed that forces from the West will enter East Berlin? These things are not about to happen. So let us deal with the situation as we find it. Berlin is physically divided in a way in which it has not been divided hitherto. The significance of the physical division of Berlin is that the city is now a symbol of the physical division of Germany - a division which has now lasted ever since World War II. ended. The significance of Berlin is that it has been the safety valve, or the escape hatch, between eastern Europe and western Europe. This traffic from east to west has now been stopped. And what is this Government's lead in the matter? How is it marshalling world opinion on this issue? The Government has no plan at all. It is not as if Australia can do nothing. The Prime Minister himself made a passing reference to Article 107 of the Charter of the United Nations. It seems that Australia, as one of the enemies of Germany in the last war, and as one of the signatories to the United Nations Charter, could in fact, consistent with the Charter, bring up this subject in the United Nations. Australia is not powerless in this matter. It has a voice, a right of audience, a right of initiative, on Berlin in the United Nations under the charter. The Prime Minister apparently decided to ignore this course. The right honorable gentleman has stated the Western position concerning Berlin. He has said, quite correctly, that the Berlin problem is part of a wider problem of a German settlement, and that Berlin and Germany will remain divided until there is a peace treaty with a united Germany. But nobody in this House has asserted that there is any possibility of Germany being united within the next few years. There is no possibility of Germany or Berlin being united while the United States of America, Britain and the European Common Market countries, on the one side, and Russia, on the other side, are at arm's length. And we all know it. We ourselves have encouraged or participated in the steps on the part of the West which have made unity less likely. The Warsaw Pact and trade arrangements in the Russian bloc, similarly, have made the reunion of Germany less and less likely. I refer to the steps taken by the West which have made it less and less likely, because we in Australia have had some part in them, have encouraged them, or have negotiated with the countries concerned. When West Germany was re-armed, the union of East Germany with it became less likely. When West Germany was admitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it became still less likely that East Germany would be united with West Germany. And when West Germany signed the Treaty of Rome - the Common Market treaty - it became less likely again that East Germany would be united with West Germany. Nobody in this House genuinely believes that there is any possibility of a poll in a united Germany to elect a parliament for a united Germany. It is true that if there were such a poll the people of East Germany obviously would be overwhelmed electorally. That is why, as honorable members have said, Russia would not permit such a poll. But there are in West Germany elements that do not want it, because, if there were a poll in a united Germany, Chancellor Adenauer's party would not win, either. A very great deal of humbug is talked about this matter outside Australia. It would be disorderly to suggest that such humbug is talked in this House. But the practical situation is that every step which has been taken by East Germany and its neighbours, and by West Germany and its neighbours, and allies, has made the prospect of uniting Germany, and uniting Berlin with it, less and less likely. And we all know it. The Prime Minister also mentioned the Oder-Neisse line. Is this a matter for negotiation, or is it not? What is our attitude towards the boundary between East Germany and Poland? This is one of the factors which keeps Poland within the eastern sphere of influence - the Slav or Soviet sphere of influence - despite the many causes for reluctance on Poland's part to remain within that sphere of influence. Poland, which is now more Polish in race than any Polish state in history, realizes that the sanctity of its present de facto frontiers depends on its alliance with the Eastern states. If Poland were to escape from the Warsaw Pact, its boundaries would be moved and its area would be reduced. We know this. But what was the Prime Ministers' policy on it He made no statement at all about it. The right honorable gentleman also refuses to recognize East Germany or to talk to its authorities. Whatever may be the status of the Government of East Germany, it is a government in being. The Government of West Germany itself constantly talks to the Government of East Germany. It would be impossible for the somewhat tenuous relations in communications, trade, telephones, railways and the like to be maintained between the two parts of Germany if it were not for the fact that, de facto, the Federal and the Democratic republics recognize each other. They are on speaking terms, but we, apparently, know their business better than they do. We think, evidently, that the Government of East Germany will fade away if we pretend that it is not there. The journals of opinion in the United Kingdom, and in the United States, too, although, of course, in that country with the proper discretion which characterizes a greater number of its journals, have constantly referred to this position. If one were to mention it here one would be stigmatized as defeatist, seditious or pacifist. So much for West Berlin, **Sir. The** other subject which we are discussing is the resumption by Russia of tests of nuclear weapons. These tests cannot be justified, and nobody in this place has failed to condemn them. The resumption cannot be explained and nobody has tried to explain it. This matter, also, ought to be dealt with in the United Nations General Assembly. That is where it was dealt with before. The Prime Minister recalled that in 1957 the General Assembly endorsed the proposals by Britain and the United States for a two-year suspension of nuclear tests and a scheme for the production of fissionable material solely for peaceful purposes. But the manufacture of nuclear weapons has gone on uninterruptedly in at least four countries. Only the testing has been resumed, because only the testing was interrupted. That was in 1957. At its meeting on 4th November, 1958, the General Assembly noted the fact that the three nuclear countries had commenced negotiations on a suspension of tests and a control system on 31st October. It passed a lengthy resolution dealing with the question of disarmament, the discontinuance of atomic and hydrogen tests, the reduction of the military budgets of Russia, America, Britain and France by from 10 to 15 per cent., and the use of part of the savings so effected for assistance to the underdeveloped countries. The resolution was adopted by 49 notes to nine with 22 abstentions. The countries in the Soviet bloc were those which voted against it and Australia voted in favour of it. That was our attitude at that time. On 20th November a year later the General Assembly expressed its grave concern over the intention of the Government of France to conduct nuclear tests and requested France to refrain from such tests. The resolution was adopted by 51 votes to sixteen, with fifteen abstentions. I notice that Australia abstained. It took the bold course. It gave no leadership on this matter. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Was that our Prime Minister? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- He was not at that meeting of the General Assembly. We were not prepared either to support France or to condemn France. We abstained. Nevertheless, we made up for it the next day when the Assembly noted that the three nuclear powers had suspended tests and were still discussing a permanent suspension or ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. It expressed the hope that they would reach such an agreement, appealed to them to continue their voluntary discontinuance of tests and to other States to desist from such tests, and requested them to report to the General Assembly the results of their negotiations. The resolution was adopted by 60 votes to one, with twenty abstentions. France voted against it, but Australia voted in favour. I regret to say that both America and Britain abstained. We have taken the attitude in 1958, and again in 1959, that discussions between Britain, America and Russia on suspending and finally banning these tests should be encouraged and we asked them to report to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Now that one of the countries has broken loose and has outraged world opinion in this matter, where could we more properly raise the matter than in the General Assembly next week. The General Assembly has on several occasions noted this matter and expressed opinions on it overwhelmingly. We have joined in those expressions of opinion. Why do we not join in those expressions of opinion again? Australia would be united behind that attitude and we would help to marshal world opinion as it should be marshalled against the resumption of atmospheric bomb tests by the Soviet Union and the resumption, regrettably, of more innocuous tests by America. All bombs of this character are obnoxious, although some are more dangerous and obnoxious than others. But next week is the time to marshal world opinion and this week was the opportunity to unite Australian opinion. We all abhor the possibility of a resort to nuclear war. As **Mr. George** Kennan has described this method of deterrent, we are maintaining peace by the threat of killing hostages. There has been in many circles a natural revulsion against the killing of civilian populations in the last war, in which a great number of us in this chamber participated. Aerial warfare inevitably resulted in more innocent and noncombatant people being killed than did any previous form of war, and nuclear war would exacerbate that process. Every nation which has nuclear bombs or is manufacturing them and, still more, is testing them, holds out that at some future occasion it may kill the civilian population of its opponents. This parity of deterrent may easily disappear, because one of the countries which already has nuclear weapons may achieve some technical breakthrough, either in explosion or delivery, and further countries may get these weapons. The time to act is next week in the General Assembly of the United Nations. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-37-0-s6 .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES:
Lawson -- I think we should feel grateful that the forms of the House facilitate the making of statements of the sort presented by the PrimeMinister **(Mr. Menzies)** in this place, because the opportunity is thus afforded for informative and practical statements to be made for the benefit and interest of the people of Australia. Such statements are to the great benefit of the people because at times such as those we are now facing it is only right that the people of Australia should be properly informed on these matters. It was very refreshing to hear the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** make his appeal; and the opportunity has been presented to the Parliament as a whole to express a national view on these matters. One would have thought that that opportunity would have been seized and that the obvious party political line would not have been indulged in by some members. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** who made a thoughtful and very considered speech. I am only sorry that it was not made earlier in the debate, in which event some of his followers might have been induced to do what they might be expected to do and follow his example. I say that because it was a line which might well have been used by them. On the contrary, we found that some of them adopted the opposite attitude. To say the least, I was surprised to hear one honorable member this afternoon refer to sabre rattlers " on the other side of the House ", who, he said, " screamed for another war ". Who are these sabre rattlers on this side of the House who scream for another war? I have never heard anything more ridiculous. There has not been one word or speech here to-night indicating that there is a desire on this side of the House for another war. I do not believe there is a desire on the part of any of the Australian people to have another war. As has been said earlier in the debate, we are a peaceful people. But we are certainly not a people who would be kicked in the teeth and take it lying down. I am sure that is not expected of us. Members of the Opposition have on many occasions reminded us that they were in government during the last war and have boasted of the splendid job they did, But they are pacifists to-night, when it suits them. On other occasions they find great virtue as people who can prosecute a war. I do not charge them with being war-mongers, but they found themselves in the position of having a war on their hands and they had no choice but to carry on. I shall not name the man who made these statements because he should be ashamed of them. He said that the Western Powers broke the treaty preventing the militarization of West Germany. That is an entirely unsupported statement. There is no foundation for it at all. I was puzzled to know where he got that thought. Then I renumbered that in 1949 the Soviet authorities set up a puppet regime in the Eastern zone of Berlin which was then, presumably, a free city. With Soviet support and in further violation of the four-power agreement, the East German regime proclaimed the Soviet sector of Berlin to be its capital. I mention that in preamble because it leads up to what actually occurred. I remind the honorable member for Scullin that I am referring to East Germany. In the spring of 1950, shortly after this puppet government was set up, the Soviet Union began arming the East German forces on the plea that the forces were police. The Soviet said that the people's police must be armed. The Western allies protested that they were not police and that it was not justified that they should be armed. But, by the end of 1953, so successfully had this been carried out that East Germany with a population of 17,000,000 people had 140,000 military personnel in the guise of people's police. It had three mechanical divisions, an air force, and 100,000 armed police. I admit that some protection was given in the form of arms to the police in West Germany. But the East German movement occurred a year before the establishment of any form of armed force by the Federal Republic of West Germany. That force consisted only of 150,000 regular police who had the responsibility of looking after a population three times that of East Germany. On that very flimsy excuse, does this honorable member of the Opposition claim that the Western powers broke the treaty preventing the militarization of West Germany? This decade has been one of broken treaties and broken promises, broken not by the allies, as an examination will show, but by the Soviet Union. Russia's recent promise not to indulge in atom bomb testing was broken overnight. As an earlier speaker said, this has been followed by almost daily explosions of missiles. Why has the Opposition tended to excuse the Soviet for the action it has taken in regard to Berlin? 1 leave the people who have listened to the debate and those who read " Hansard " to form their own conclusions as to whether that is a fair statement. What is the type of diplomacy indulged in by the Soviet Union in this matter? The Soviet sent one of its usual replies in a note to the Western governments regarding the strengthening of the Berlin border control. It was worded in this way - >West Berlin has been turned into a centre of subversive activities, sabotage and espionage, into a centre of political and economic provocations against the German Democratic Republic, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Are these the sort of words to which the pacificists in this chamber will listen unperturbed? Are they quite unmoved when a diplomatic note of that sort is handed to their Government, or when the further statement, lower in the note, is read? It is - >West Berlin has become a dcn of adventurers, rogues, paid agents, terrorists and other criminals serving the intelligence services of the entire Imperialistic world. On such claims the Soviet bases its argument that it has the right to close the borders of the Eastern zone of Berlin - borders of which there were some 80 crossings only a few weeks ago. The number of crossings has been reduced to seven and people have been attempting to escape from the glory of living in East Berlin. They have been shot as they try to escape from the luxury that was promised to them and which they were supposed to enjoy. What a remarkable thing it is that barbed wire entanglements and watch towers are being erected and machine guns set up between East and West Germany and between East and West Berlin to keep these people in so that they can enjoy the production of Eastern Germany! Yet, according to the Russian note, the idea of closing the border was to keep thugs, rogues and paid agents out. Nothing of the sort! Some 4,000,000 people escaped across the border while they were able to do so and people are still trying to escape. A lot of history has been quoted to-night. I do not want to go over it but I think it may be useful briefly to trace the facts of the situation existing in Berlin to-day. The Berlin situation is not a separate entity. It is associated with the division of Germany. It is associated also with the second statement made by the Prime Minister referring to the testing of the atom bomb. Just after the war, conditions were very confused. The French had hardly settled down after the terrible times that they had had during the war. There was a feeling that until a peace treaty could be signed with Germany there should be a temporary occupation and that that would be carried out by the three allies at that time - the Soviet Union, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, France not then being able to participate. It did so later on. But at that stage the old German boundaries were divided into three zones - one to be administered by the Western Allies - the United Kingdom and the United States of America - one by the Soviet Union - another of the allies at that time - and another adjoining Poland to be administered by the Polish people. I was most interested and amused to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** say that the Poles to-day were more Polish than they had ever been. The poor wretches! Of course they are! They hate the Russians! Only about 20 per cent, of the Poles are Communists. When I was in Poland a couple of years ago I tried to get one of the few taxi drivers to drive me around to look at the Palace of Culture which was given to the Poles by the Russians. They were told later that it cost about £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 and that they would have to pay for it so they were not very happy about that. This man would not show me the Palace of Culture. I have since asked several Polish people why. One said that they hated the Russians and did not want to see the Palace of Culture. Is it any wonder that the Poles are more Polish than they were before? Probably they are more nationalist than any other people with whom I have associated. They love their country. In the past, when they have not been preparing to repel an invader they have been rebuilding their cities after destruction caused by an invader. They know to-day that there is very little future for them with the present state of politics in eastern Europe, and until such a change comes they have little to hope for, because they are surrounded by either the Soviet Union or its satellites on all sides. So it is ridiculous to say that they do not want to see any rapprochement between East and West Germany which would lead to unity in Germany. The Poles do not like the Germans. They hate the Nazis because they suffered from them, but at least a unified Germany would give them an outlet for their trade, which they are denied at present. If a German administration carried on for a number of years the idea of Germany's being a demilitarized country, and rehabilitated Germany to the point where a peace treaty could be signed for the whole of Germany - which was always the intention, because there has never been any intention to sign a peace treaty with a dismembered Germany - the Poles would benefit. As well as the zones to which I have referred Berlin was set up as a free city. What a lot of people outside may not realize, although they may learn from listening to this debate, is that we are still virtually at war with Germany, no peace ever having been signed with that country after its unconditional surrender. It is well to remember that Berlin is within the Soviet sector of Germany. It is some hundreds of miles inside the border of East Germany and fairly well over towards the Polish border. It would have been absurd to have this free city in such a zone without access having been given to it from the outward world. Berlin itself was also divided into sectors to be administered by the then allies, and it was equally obvious that if those allies were to keep the peace they would have to have armed troops in Berlin and some means of getting their forces in and out. So air corridors and certain other arrangements were devised to permit the movement of troops. What is the proposition to-day? The Soviet Union's proposition is that Russia will sign a peace treaty with East Germany. Russia will then obviously say that the occupation forces should leave, and that no doubt the West Berlin people can make some arrangements with East Germany for ingress to and egress from Berlin. That is the absurd proposition advanced, and obviously the Soviet Union's desire is ultimately to get control over the whole of Berlin as well as the eastern sector which it holds at present. Time does not permit me to enter into a digression as to what possibilties may exist for this poor bedevilled country, but one thing is certain, and that is that free elections can be held in Germany, and should be held. If the Soviet Union is honest in its continual protestations in the United Nations that it wants people to be free and to have the right to free elections, then one of the very first things it must do is to co-operate in enabling such free elections to be held in Germany as a whole. But while the Soviet says that it is all for peace and wants to give people an opportunity to hold free elections it is playing round with atom bombs in a nice quiet little significant gesture which says, " If you do not do what we suggest we will let go one of our bombs, and not an experimental one either ". That is the position, and that is what those professed peace-lovers on the Opposition benches should realize. They must realize that merely to want peace is not enough. Every one wants peace - but not peace at any price, because that is the choice we have to-day. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Reynolds)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1269 {:#debate-38} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Reserve Bank of Australia - Parliamentary Allowances - Unemployment Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- A little over two weeks ago, in this chamber - actually on 29th August - I raised the matter of the unsatisfactory state of affairs existing in regard to the letting of a contract for the building of the head-quarters of the Commonwealth Reserve Bank, in Sydney. The Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** then said - >I agree that if the decision is not awarded to the lowest tenderer there must be some substantial reason for it. He went on to say - >The Government will undertake to give a full report to the House on the circumstances of the contract and the tenders. On 31st August - two nights later - the Minister came in here and read a statement which had obviously been prepared by the bank officers or by his own department, the Commonwealth Department of Works, which was acting as agent for the bank. He said that the bank confirmed that the lowest, second lowest, and a number of other tenderers had been told that their tenders were not acceptable. He went on to relate that by advertisements on 29th April and 6th May building contractors desiring to tender had been invited to register by 22nd May, thus indicating that they were interested in tendering for this contract. By letter dated 24th June fourteen of them were invited to submit tenders, but only after the bank had investigated their financial status, including a report from their bankers and an examination of their balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts for the preceding three years. They were also asked to submit a list of completed works and those at present in hand. The bank examined their time performance record, their technical equipment and their general capacity to undertake the work. Tenders closed on 4th August. On 10th August, four of the five lowest tenderers were advised that they had been unsuccessful, including the lowest tenderer for an amount of £4,535,000. The tenderers have been unable to get any satisfactory explanation as to why the bank and the Commonwealth Department of Works, acting as agent for the bank, rejected the two lowest tenders.The bank's only explanation up to date is that the screening of firms which hadregistered had not been completed at the time an invitation to tender was extended to them. But it is strange to relate that on 11th July fourteen tenderers - every one of the firms that had been invited to tender - sought a discussion with the bank on certain aspects of the conditions of the contract. The Minister said, in this chamber that at no time during those discussions was it mentioned or implied that the bank should or would accept the lowest tender, or that preliminary investigations had any bearing on such a question. Neither had the bank representatives, on 11th July, which was some weeks after the investigation of their affairs had commenced, advised any of the tenderers that they had already been eliminated from any consideration in regard to the letting of the contract. The Minister quoted from the Sydney "Daily Telegraph", of 31st August, when he made his statement in this Parliament, and honorable members will recollect that he did it with a great deal of obvious satisfaction. He said that **Mr. H.** N. Barton, president of the Master Builders Association, had said that - >After conferring with the bank and considering the situation we, the Master Builders Association, are satisfied. **Mr. Ward** is on the wrong track. We now find the same gentleman, **Mr. H.** N. Barton, stating in a letter which he had contributed to the " Daily Telegraph " on 7th September last that his views had been misconstrued by the newspaper. He stated that there had been a telephone interview, and went on to say - >I want to make quite clear that the construction firms who tendered for the project are not satisfied and neither am I. This is the gentleman on whom the Minister relied entirely in his efforts to show that there was no basis for the complaints that I had made. I understand that the Master Builders Association, far from being satisfied, has now asked the Minister to receive a deputation to discuss this matter. Is it not rather significant that these four firms were told on 10th August that they were unsuccessful tenderers but the bank yet has not announced who the successful tenderer is. I am given to understand that the successful tenderer is to be a firm named Watta, a Melbourne building construction firm, but its tender was only the third lowest. Evidently thinking that it was playing a bit cunning the bank knocked out the two lowest tenders and the two above Watts' tender to make it appear that there was nothing deliberate in its action to make this the lowest tender still under consideration. The firms who were advised on 10th August that they were unsuccessful want to know what was discovered in the screening to make them ineligible. Their reputations as building firms have been smeared. To show that there is no basis for any suggestion that the lowest tendered, Eastment Brothers, could not undertake the work,, let me remind honorable members that Eastment Brothers constructed the Yaralla Repatriation Hospital, the Greenway Flats on the other side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge - one of the biggest blocks of residential flats in Sydney - and the Haymarket Telephone Exchange. I could go on enumerating other great projects which not only Eastment Brothers but also the other firms which have been declared to beunsuccessful tenderers have completed. There is one significant thing about the Minister's statement. He has not replied to the information that was passed on to me that Bruce F. Cameron, a quantity surveyor who has worked for the Commonwealth Department of Works for a good number of years - as a matter of fact. I understand that a great deal of hiswork comes from the Department of Works - wrote a letter of protest to the bank regarding the manner in which it had dealt with the tenders for this great undertaking. He has now been informed, 1 understand by letter, that as a result of his protest, he will be given no further Commonwealth work. I have asked the Minister whether this is a fact, and hehas not replied to date. According to the Minister the bank had acted on the adviceof its experts. What experts? According to a newspaper statement by one of the partners in the firm of Eastment Brothers, the bank officers called in the firm toadvise in regard to preliminary work upon the construction of this bank. **Mr. Bruce** F. Cameron, one of the quantity surveyors who, as I have said, has done work for the Department of Works for a number of years, has protested about what hashappened in this instance, so he could not have been one of the experts who advised! the Government. I hope that the Minister or the Government will not be foolish enough to allow this tender to be let to other than the lowest tenderer. Surely after a thorough investigation has been made of the capacity of the firms to undertake the work and their financial standing, if there is any merit in the tender system the job should go to the lowest tenderer. Unless the Government does this, it will leave a certain suspicion that everything is not fair and above board and that certain things have been happening in the letting of tenders which warrant a thorough public investigation to ascertain who is responsible. I want the Government to investigate the whole thing thoroughly. The Minister gave an undertaking that there would be a full investigation by the Government and that an explanation would be forthcoming. **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).Order!** The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS:
Scullin .- Recently I placed on the notice-paper a question directed to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** in the following terms - What amount was paid to each Minister as an "away from home allowance" in 1960-61? The Prime Minister replied to the question on Wednesday, 13th September, in this way - The total paid for travelling allowances for Ministers and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition is shown in the Estimates for the Prime Minister's Department .... I was aware of that fact because I had seen in the Estimates that £34,000 had been allocated for this purpose. But I thought that, like myself, the people of Australia would want to know how that £34,000 was made up. The Prime Minister did not reply to my question. After all, £34,000 divided amongst the Ministers who were away from home represents an average for each Minister of about £1,500 a year or £30 a week. As probably most of the Ministers would be paying tax at the rate of about 15s. in the £1, these allowances would bring their net income to the vicinity of £6,000 a year. But as some Ministers probably receive more than others, this amount would vary. When I submitted my question I was anxious to find out exactly what the amount represented. I am still anxious to find out exactly what it represents, and I now ask the Prime Minister to be good enough to answer in detail the question that I have asked. There are other matters of urgent public importance which I wish to bring before the Parliament. I have in my hand a telegram in these terms - Daylesford textile mill to close after 25 years all plant transferring to Bentleigh factory Melbourne commencing this week demand urgent attention situation desperate, (sgd.) 75 Daylesford employees. I have a letter from a gentleman who states that the Wangaratta flour mills are to close down. I have another communication from the Dorrigo Chamber of Commerce in which the secretary asks for a moratorium to be established on hirepurchase payments on vehicles and equipment used in the timber industry as they are essential to preserve the solvency of the people engaged in the industry in that district. I know that the knitting mill at Bridgeport, Victoria, closed down during this Government's term of office and has not been re-opened. I know too that other industries in country areas have closed down following the implementation of the Government's policies. I am sure that honorable members, not only on this side of the House, but also on the Government side, are aware that industries in country areas are closing down and that a greater concentration of industry and population is being diverted to the city areas. The Government has brought about this position by its policies, so it should take some action to ensure that the Daylesford textile mill continues in operation, thus affording continuity of employment for the 75 employees of the mill who signed the telegram that I have read. The Government should take some action to ensure that the Wangaratta flour mills continue as a medium of employment for people in that district. Something should be done to resuscitate the timber industry so that requests for a moratorium to save employees from bankruptcy will not be forthcoming. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Was the telegram sent to you by the employees? {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- I know that the honorable member for Mallee is not much concerned about the decentralization of population and industry. If there were enough suitable industries in the Mallee, the honorable member would not be in this Parliament. He knows that. Every member of the Country Party fears the intrusion of population and industry into country districts. That is why members of the Australian Labour Party, people like myself, whose constituencies are not in danger as a result of this, have to rise and seek to defend the rights of people in country areas to the preservation of their industries and means of employment. The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson),** the leading conservative in this Parliament, is interjecting. Has he ever raised his voice in protest against the closing of country industries as a result of the activities of this Government? Of course not! Will he ever do it? No! Will any other member of the Country Party do it? No! {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee -- Because I interjected just now, and the honorable member for Scullin **(Mr. Peters)** made a statement with which I do not agree, I want to say a few words. First, the honorable member for Scullin found fault with the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** for not giving certain details in reply to some questions asked by the honorable member. My interjection was by way of a question. Of course, the honorable member for Scullin would not answer me. He was finding fault in relation to not getting answers, but he was not prepared to give one. We very much regret the closing down of the mill at Daylesford. My simple question to the honorable member was, "Was the telegram sent to you by the employees? " {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- Here is the telegram. Read it. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- Was it sent to you? I do not want to read the telegram. I am wondering whether the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** passed the telegram on to the honorable member. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Mind your own business! {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The honorable member has handed me the telegram. My suspicions are justified. The telegram reads, " **Mr. Arthur** Calwell, Canberra ". So the Leader of the Opposition, not wanting to take this case up himself, handed the telegram to a metropolitan member, the honorable member for Scullin. I asked a simple question. I had a suspicion that people at Daylesford would not send a telegram to the honorable member for Scullin. I thought it was very likely that they would send it to the Leader of the Opposition. My suspicions have been proved to be well-founded. There is the telegram. When I asked this question, we heard a tirade of abuse to the effect that the honorable member for Mallee did not want to have decentralization. Is it not on record in the debates of this House that every year when the Budget has been discussed I have suggested that the commissioners who fixed the electorates should go to the full extent of 20 per cent, above or below the quota allowed in the Electoral Act? Have I not done that at every opportunity? Have I not fought in this House on many occasions for decenralization of political representation? I have never been able to get any support from the Labour Party. On every occasion when I have brought up the subject, the first man to jump to his feet has always been the Leader of the Opposition. He has said to the Minister for the Interior " Do not take any notice whatever of what the honorable member for Mallee says on this subject ". I bring that up at this time of night only because the honorable member for Scullin, not wanting to answer me, has tried to divert attention by saying that I do not want decentralization. All the time that I have been in this House I have been fighting for decentralization. I do not want to enter into any special argument to-night, because everything that I 'maintained regarding the telegram and regarding decentralization I have proved right up to the hilt. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.4S p.m. {: .page-start } page 1273 {:#debate-39} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Tobacco: Committee of Inquiry {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names of growers' representatives on the committee appointed to inquire into the hardships of tobacco-growers? 1. What are the names of the technical officers and the official who are associated with this committee? 2. In what way has the Government given the committee its blessing? 3. What is the (a) source and (b) amount oi money available to this committee to assist growers suffering hardship? 4. How do growers get in touch with the committee to put their claims for assistance based upon hardship? 5. To whom should be given the names and addresses of 48 Victorian tobacco-growers who have suffered hardship? {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The growers' representatives on the Tobacco Investigation Committee are nominated by the Australian Tobacco Growers Council. The nominations by States are - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Queensland - Messrs. K. N. Martin and {: type="A" start="V"} 0. W. Barwick. 1. New South Wales- **Mr. G.** H. Warner. 2. Victoria - Messrs. L. E. Allan, D. H. Hamilton and A. Rigoni {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Western Australia - One member to be nominated when the committee arrives in Perth on 19th September. 1. Ex-officio- **Mr. N.** A. Studt, President of the Australian Growers' Council. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The technical officers associated with the committee are - **Mr. G.** J. Harvey, Department of Primary Industry, a C.S.I.R.O. officer yet to be named, and one or more officers from the State Department of Agriculture in the State where the committee may be currently operating. In addition, **Mr. W.** G. Irwin, a retired senior bank officer, with wide managerial experience, will be assisting the committee. 1. The Commonwealth has provided technical assistance (as explained in the answer to question 2) and secretarial assistance for the Investigation Committee and sincerely hopes that it will meet with success. 2. No consideration has been given to this question as no firm proposal has been placed before the Commonwealth at this stage. 3. Through their local growers associations. 4. Victorian growers who wish to consult with the Tobacco Investigation Committee should contact the secretary, Victorian Tobacco Growers Association, Clyde-street, Myrtleford. {:#subdebate-39-1} #### Food and Agriculture Committee {: #subdebate-39-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Government Food and Agriculture Committee make a tour of inland and northern Australia during the last Parliamentary recess? 1. If so, how many senators and members were in the party? 2. Did the Government initiate the tour and what was its particular purpose? 3. Did any other persons accompany the committee; if so, who were they, what were their duties and who paid their expenses? 4. How did the party travel? 5. How long did the journey last and what places were visited? 6. What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of the committee's tour? 7. What were the principal items of this expenditure and how much was incurred on each? {: #subdebate-39-1-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Twenty. 2. The tour was initiated by the Government Members' Food and Agriculture Committee to allow senators and members to see for themselves the developments which are taking place in northern Australia and to assess the potentialities for further development. 3. Yes. There was one representative from each of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Western Australian Government, the Water Research Foundation of Australia, the Australian Meat Board, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Country Women's Association of New South Wales, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and the Department of Primary Industry. In addition there were six representatives of the press and broadcasting stations. Senators and members used their restricted air travel vouchers and met all other expenses personally. As was the case with an Australian Labour Party group that made a similar tour about that time, the expenses of the departmental official were met by his department. The expenses of other persons accompanying the committee were matters for them and for their organizations. 4. By Ansett-A.N.A. chartered aircraft. 5. Eight days with visits to Warren, Cunnamulla, Quilpie, Windorah, Winton, Mount Isa, Brunette Downs, Tennant Creek, Darwin, Katherine, Ivanhoe, Victoria River Downs and Alice Springs. 7 and 8. As compared with the Australian Labour Party group, the costs of the Government members' group were - {:#subdebate-39-2} #### War Service Homes {: #subdebate-39-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many advances were (a) sought and (b) granted for group homes under the War Service Homes Act in each State in 1960-61? 1. For how many group homes does the War Service Homes Division hold land in each State? 2. What is the waiting period for group homes in each State? 3. What is now the average cost of (a) acquiring and developing land for a group home and (b) building a group home in each State? {: #subdebate-39-2-s1 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
CP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - l.- {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The number of allotments of land held by the division at 30th June, 1961, in each State was - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The waiting period for a group home at 30th June, 1961, was as follows:- New South Wales, sixteen months; Queensland, eight months; Western Australia, six months. There is no demand for group homes in other States. The waiting period varies with the locality desired by the applicant. The periods shown represent the average waiting time for a home in the metropoli tan area and includes the time taken to erect the home. 1. It is not practicable to supply an answer to this question. Costs of purchasing and developing land and of erecting homes thereon vary considerably. Costs of purchasing and developing land are influenced by such factors as locality, nature of terrain, availability of services, *Sec.,* whilst the cost of building a group home varies with the size and type of construction of the home and the locality in which it is erected. {: #subdebate-39-2-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - >How many interim mortgages were (a) approved and (b) discharged by the War Service Homes Division in each State in 1960-61? {: #subdebate-39-2-s3 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
CP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer to the honorable member's question: - >The particulars furnished cover cases in which the applicant has been given approval to build a home with temporary finance secured by a mortgage, charge or encumbrance over the property, the mortgage, &c, being discharged by the division on completion of the home, subject to any waiting period applicable at the time. {:#subdebate-39-3} #### Safety Belts {: #subdebate-39-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice - >Now that the Commissioner of Taxation has classified car safety belts as protective equipment under the sales tax laws and the Australian Road Safety Council has advanced their use as proven safety devices, is it intended to fit them to Supply Department vehicles? {: #subdebate-39-3-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The question of fitting safety belts to vehicles operated by my department and the selection of the most suitable belts are matters at present under consideration. {:#subdebate-39-4} #### Motor Vehicles {: #subdebate-39-4-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What manufacturers exported motor vehicles in the last financial year? 1. What were the number and' value of the vehicles exported by each manufacturer? 2. What were the number and value of the vehicles exported to each of the six principal destinations? {: #subdebate-39-4-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- In reply to the honorable member's question the Commonwealth Statistician has informed me as follows: - 1 and 2. Information is not recorded on the names of exporters of motor vehicles nor the value of their shipments. In any case, the provisions of the Census and Statistics Act would preclude the disclosing of such information. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Total exports of completed motor vehicles, components and parts (excluding brake lining sets and linings) during the year ended 30th June, 1961, amounted to £A8,770,739 f.o.b. Of this amount the exports of complete motor vehicles to the major countries of consignment were - Commonwealth Loans. {: #subdebate-39-4-s2 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP s. - On Wednesday, 6th September, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** asked the Treasurer about a statement made in a letter addressed by the Treasurer to holders of maturing Commonwealth stocks and bonds. In the letter the Treasurer invited holders of Commonwealth securities maturing on Friday, 15th September, to convert them into securities being offered in the cash and conversion loan which is now open. The Treasurer also mentioned that a nev series of special bonds - series F - would be issued. He then went on to describe the terms on which special bonds - series F - would be issued, and mentioned the fact that capital premiums accrue during the life of these bonds, as they do during the life of all special bonds. Later in the same paragraph, he commented that special bonds are " readily cashable but not subject to market fluctuations ". He concluded the paragraph by saying " in fact they can never decrease in value ". The fact is that the honorable member for East Sydney made a most misleading quotation from the Treasurer's letter. What the Treasurer was saying was that special bonds contain a very real advantage for smaller investors, in that they are not subject to market fluctuations, and can be redeemed at any time after their first interest date on one month's notice and at increasing values. {:#subdebate-39-5} #### Importation of Incubators {: #subdebate-39-5-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister represent.ing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were two large electric incubators of an approximate total value of £11,000 admited free of duty under by-law earlier this year? 1. If so, why was it found necessary to admit electric incubators free of duty when satisfactory incubators have been manufactured in Australia for many years? 2. What is the name and address of the importer or firm which submitted the application? 3. Will the Minister make available the report and recommendation of the departmental officers who dealt with this application? 4. Is it a fact that an application for the admis sion under by-law of additional incubators is at present receiving consideration? {: #subdebate-39-5-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. The incubators in question were imported from the United Kingdom and, as individual units, were the largest type used to date by the rapidly expanding poultry industry. 1. On the basis of the information available to the Department of Customs and Excise at the time the particular decision was made, it was considered that the smaller sized Australian-manufactured incubators were not suitably equivalent. 2. As a matter of policy, names of applicants for ministerial determinations are not published. However, other details of determinations made are published in the " Commonwealth Gazette ", as required by section 273b of the Customs Act. 3. No. To do so would be to disclose details of a confidential nature concerning the business of the various firms involved. 4. Yes. The application has been carefully examined in the light of all the information now available to the Department and by-law admission has been refused. {:#subdebate-39-6} #### Excise Duty {: #subdebate-39-6-s0 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - >What revenue was raised from excise imposed in Western Australia on alcoholic liquor for the years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61? {: #subdebate-39-6-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answer to the honorable member's question: - >Revenue from excise on alcoholic liquor collected in Western Australia -

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610914_reps_23_hor32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant