/
19550929_reps_21_hor8.xml
2399 lines (2399 loc) · 228 KB
/
19550929_reps_21_hor8.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1955-09-29</date>
<parliament.no>21</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>3</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>1129</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<business.start>
<day.start>1955-09-29</day.start>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>1129</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ESTIMATES</title>
<page.no>1129</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1129</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I rise to support the remarks that have been made by honorable members on this side of the chamber in connexion with the Government's escapade in Malaya - it is only an escapade - which was agreed upon at secret conferences, about which the Parliament was not even consulted. I was rather surprised to hear the honorable member for Lyne <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lucock)</inline> in the role of sabre-rattling, trigger-happy warmonger. I expected that a man who had spent quite a good deal of his time before he came into this Parliament preaching the word of God might have made at least a small effort to try to practise the things that Christ taught His followers. But no ! The honorable member for Lyne, although he was paid for many years by the Presbyterian Church to teach and preach Christianity, has spent almost the whole of his time in this Parliament advocating a policy that is diametrically opposed to the things that Christ taught. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>It seems to me that supporters of the Government have either not noticed that there has been a conference at Geneva, or that they have deliberately chosen to ignore the decisions of that very important conference. I often think, when listening to speeches by members of the Liberal party, that honorable members opposite do not want peace, but that they want war - war at any cost! Their attitude seems to be, "If we cannot get war in one direction, let us intrude ourselves into the affairs of some other direction ". They have gone all over the world looking for local disputes into which they can buy, and risk valuable Australian lives. It seems that honorable members on the Government side of the chamber have not heard of the hydrogen bomb. Apparently they do not realize that one hydrogen bomb can cause the same amount of destruction as 50,000,000 tons of T.N.T. Apparently they have not read in the newspapers that the Minister for External Affairs <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Casey),</inline> a man who is not noted for favouring peace, only last week stated that the world faced a situation in which it had to choose between co-existence and non-existence. But honorable members opposite do not want co-existence. They want a war, not realizing that a war, as the Minister for External Affairs said, means nonexistence, because wars will be fought with hydrogen bombs, atomic bombs and perhaps weapons of even greater destructive force. </para>
<para>If we want to save Malaya from communism, -we must let the people of Malaya have the right to govern themselves. That is a right that they do not possess now. We could send all the Australian troops that it is possible to raise, and we would never stop communism in Malaya by trying to force the Malayan people to accept the capitalist way of life. Communism cannot be defeated in that way. Do you realize, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline> that over the last six or seven years as many as 300,000 troops, home guards and the like have been attempting to defeat the 6,000 terrorists in Malaya? Yet, there are as many bandits there now as there were six years ago in spite of the fact that 300,000 troops, including home guards, have been trying to drive them out of the Malayan jungle. The honorable member for Lyne is leaving the chamber. Apparently he realizes that what I have said about him is perfectly true. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1129</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >HARRISON, Eric John</name>
<name role="display">Sir Eric Harrison</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is a foul and miserable statement. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1129</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- -The VicePresident of the Executive Council <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Eric Harrison)</inline> says that that is a foul statement. Let me say something about the administration of the Minister for the Army <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Francis).</inline> He is the individual who deliberately refused to take any action in connexion with a case which I brought under his notice in which a member of the Regular Army, who expressed a desire not to go to Malaya to fight the Malayan people, had asked to be allowed to remain in Australia with the Regular Army. The Minister tola me that people in the Regular Army would go where they were sent. He said that if the man concerned would rejoin his unit the matter would receive consideration, but that he would give no guarantee. The man was not prepared to rejoin his unit. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>The Government has no right to send any member of the Regular Army to Malaya against his will. It has no right to send any Australian soldier to </para>
<para class="block">Malaya to fight to support the kind of conditions that exist in Malaya. The rights of the Malayan people have been subjugated in the interests of Chinese millionaire merchants, British exporters and the wealthy owners of tin mines and rubber plantations. The people of whom the honorable member for Evans <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Osborne)</inline> spoke are, in the main, Chinese millionaires or their representatives and the representatives of the wealthy merchants, bankers, tin mine owners and rubber plantation owners. The honorable member for Evans has not discussed with the ordinary people of Malaya whether or not Australian troops are welcome in Malaya. He attempted to express, on behalf of all the Malayan people, views which had been conveyed to him by a tiny coterie of the vested interests which has a lot to gain by continuing to force upon the Malayan people the form of colonialism that has existed there for over two centuries. </para>
<para>Do honorable members realize that the Government is asking Australian troops to defend a government which allows arrest without warrant, search without warrant, and imprisonment without trial for up to two years? Do they realize that the writ of habeas corpus has been completely suspended in Malaya and that trial by jury is not known? Intimidation of union leaders aud the victimization of militant workers are the order of the day. All militant workers in Malaya are branded by the people with whom Government supporters fraternize when they visit Malaya as Communists in much the same way as in this country Government supporters brand every militant worker as a Communist. They invent an imaginary army of Communists, and by doing so, they give to the Communists the kudos that they are the only people who are capable of being militant. I deny that. I say that the Labour movement takes second place to nobody for militancy. It was the militancy of the early leaders of the Labour party that made it the great party that it is now. At the Hobart conference, the Australian Labour party was proud to proclaim its foreign policy which is not dictated by Communists. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDREWS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr Andrews</name>
</talker>
<para>- Communist imperialism ! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nothing of the kind. Will the honorable member say that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Joe</inline> Cahill is a Communist? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- He is just a squib. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- You say lie is just a squib. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is right. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDREWS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr Andrews</name>
</talker>
<para>- He is only a weakling. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member for Yarra says that he is just a squib and the honorable member for Darebin <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Andrews)</inline> says that he is only a weakling. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDREWS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr Andrews</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is right. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member for Fawkner <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. W. M. Bourke)</inline> interjects that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cahill</inline> took the action that he did take in order to crawl out of a difficult position. We can realize how irresponsible is this corner group in view of the fact that they have described the Premier of New South Wales as a Communist. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- He is a squib. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- This afternoon, when the honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Ward)</inline> was speaking, in answer to the question, "Is Joe Cahill a Communist?" the honorable member for Darebin, by way of interjection, said " Yes ". </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDREWS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr Andrews</name>
</talker>
<para>- I said that he war following Communist policy. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- And the honorable member said that if he follows Communist policy, he is a Communist on that account. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JLW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDREWS, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Mr Andrews</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is right. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1130</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am glad we have the record clear. The people of Malaya, as distinct from foreign investors, are opposed to Australian troops being in that country. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. David</inline> Marshall, the Chief Minister of Singapore, lias made it perfectly clear that they do not want Australian troops in Malaya. The Australian people do not want Australian troops in Malaya for the very good reason that they know that after Australian troops are sent to Malaya the Government will then send two divisions to Malaya. The people also know that the Government could only get those two divisions by conscription. The honorable member for Ballarat knows that the Government cannot get them by voluntary methods. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1131</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOSHUA, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joshua</name>
</talker>
<para>- Do not indulge in misrepresentation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1131</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member knows that the Government can get them only by conscription. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1131</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOSHUA, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr JOSHUA</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member cannot put words into my mouth. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1131</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>2V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >CAMERON, Clyde</name>
<name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is the position. They advocate a kind of tiling which can be implemented only by conscription. When they realized that tl,ev were in a jam through putting forward a point of view which could only be implemented by conscription, they say, " Wc are in a jam now. We had better get out of it as quickly as we can. What can we do? We shall submit an amendment and make it appear that we believe in the voluntary system of recruitment after all." So there it is ! The honorable member for Yarra really staggers me. No one has any right to send any mother's son to fight on foreign soil against the wishes of the people who belong to that soil. I am sorry to say it, but the Minister for the Army is quite hopeless as a Minister. His policy of forcing members of the Australian Regular Army to go to Malaya whether they like it or not will not promote recruiting. It is no wonder that the recruiting programme has fallen completely flat. The Minister's administration could not fail to have the results about which he complains. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Malaya, like Goa and Cyprus, provides an example of foreign domination by people who preach, democracy at home but refuse to practise it abroad. The Government claims that it believes in democracy in Australia, but it does not believe in it in Malaya. Communism will continue to flourish while people in any country are forced to go hungry. I am pleased to note that that viewpoint was supported by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Santamaria</inline> in Adelaide last week. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1131</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
<name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1131</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWP</name.id>
<electorate>Mallee</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
<name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
</talker>
<para>.- If for no other reason, I wish to speak on these Estimates now to thank the Minister for the Army <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Francis)</inline> publicly for the manner in which he has treated me every time I have approached him to make representations on behalf of my constituents. I could not have received more consideration from any one. The Minister has been most courteous and helpful to me and has done everything possible to achieve the results that I wanted and that were for the good of the country generally. I appreciate the Minister's attention to my representations. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>From the remarks that members of the Australian Labour party have made about Australia's defence and the sending of forces to Malaya, it appears that, if they want to defend Australia at all - and I am very doubtful about it - they want to defend it on Australian soil. Every member of the Australian Labour party seems to be opposed to service overseas for the protection of Australia. Any one who has seen, in Malaya or other countries, the consequences of invasion, and who can picture the fate of women, children and civilians generally in an invaded country, will pledge himself never to afford any invading force the opportunity of entering Australia and, whenever possible, to send Australian forces overseas to fight our battles on other soil. </para>
<para>We have heard some remarkable speeches on the Defence Estimates. The honorable member for Hindmarsh <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Clyde Cameron)</inline> stated that the Government cannot obtain troops for the Malaya force except by conscription. The honorable member for Blaxland <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. E. James Harrison)</inline> depicted Malaya as a paradise where houses and servants are freely provided and to which Australian troops will eagerly rush. We have seen thesplit in the Australian Labour party that has resulted in the formation of the antiCommunist Labour party. It appears, from the opinions expressed by two prominent members of the party, that,, on the subject of defence, there is another split in the party. What are we to think about the Australian Labour party? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1132</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" >HARRISON, Eric John</name>
<name role="display">Sir ERIC Harrison</name>
</talker>
<para>- Do not ask us. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1132</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
<name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
</talker>
<para>- No one that I may ask will be able to tell me. As a member of this chamber, I have watched the activities of Labour closely for nearly ten years, and I find it impossible to understand that party. I am in the same position as are all Government supporters and as were the members of the present Government parties when they were in opposition. We cannot understand the Australian Labour party. At one time most Labour members expressed individually held views, and now some of them get together and, in fact, suggest that Australia should not fulfil its obligations as a member of the great British Commonwealth of Nations. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="italic">
<inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.</inline>
</para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1132</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
<name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
</talker>
<para>- Before the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out that the honorable member for Hindmarsh had said that it was impossible to get men to go to Malaya voluntarily, and therefore, they had to be conscripted for service there. But the honorable member for Blaxland said, shortly before the honorable member for Hindmarsh spoke, that men would go to Malaya because they are getting houses, servants and good pay there. He more or less said that it was a paradise for the troops. The honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Ward)</inline> expressed still another point of view. He pointed out that the troops had to face all sorts of hazards in Malaya. The views expressed on this matter on the opposite side of the chamber are so inconsistent that it is hard to follow the thinking of the remnants of the Labour party, now that the members who formed the Anti-Communist Labour party have broken away from it. Members of the Opposition have said that there is no enemy in Malaya now, but that if there was a war there the position would be quite different. I do not want to indulge in personal reminiscences, but I was in Malaya for nine continuous months before Pearl Harbour, and at that time there was no sign of war coming to Malaya. Some people were of the opinion that war would not come to Malaya. It was a peaceful place, and the Australian troops stationed there at that time were not engaged in war-like activities. But I say that there is an enemy there now. There are the terrorists in the jungle, who kill people in ambush, regardless of whether they are men, women or children. They murder them at night. The tragedies of that nature in Malaya have been appalling. The terrorists are committing act. against the laws of God and man. Let us be thankful that we have a man like the honorable member for Lyne <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Lucock),</inline> a Christian gentleman who is willing to rise in this chamber and fight in order to obtain some redress against those who are committing lawless outrages in Malaya. It is beyond comprehension that the honorable member for Hindmarsh should criticize him by saying something about his Christian standing. Labour party members have said that there are certain people in Malaya who resent the despatch of Australian troops to that country. I had no doubt about that. I had no doubt that people in Malaya who are friendly and sympathetic towards the terrorists in the jungle do not like Australian troops going there. People do not like a military force to enter a country to fight their friends. But. the large majority of the people of Malaya welcome the Australian troops. The Malay himself is not much of a fighting man, as I know. He is rather timid in his movements and actions, and would appreciate having some real help from Australian troops. I am willing to admit that there are a few people in Malaya, friends of the terrorists, who do not want Australian troops stationed there. I have discovered that in Australia there is also a certain section of the community which does not want Australian troops to be sent to Malaya. Some do not like them coming to Malaya from Australia, and some do not like them going from Australia to Malaya. They are the friends of the terrorists. .Speaking in the terms of the sheep man, if I was on the drafting race I would put them all in the same pen. It is my considered opinion that the people who do not want Australian troops to go to Malaya are exactly the same as those people in Malaya who do not want Australian troops to come there, because their sympathies are with the terrorists. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1132</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWT</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRANCIS, Josiah</name>
<name role="display">Mr Francis</name>
</talker>
<para>- With the Communists ! </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1133</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
<name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes, with the Communist terrorists. I think that most Australians are proud that this country belongs to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Membership of the Commonwealth is our proud boast, and may it long be so. There are United Kingdom troops and New Zealand troops in Malaya. Let us take pride in being associated with them in trying to wipe out i his scourge of terrorists. Let us be proud of it, and not hang back like the Labour party does, and say we should not do it. After all, what is the foundation of the Labour party's opposition to the sending of troops to Malaya, when all its views are summed up? It has resulted from a decision of the Hobart conference of the Labour party. I should like to ask any Labour supporter opposite who rises to speak in this debate to tell us how many high military officers or tacticians were present at the Hobart conference who could offer sound advice to the delegates. Were there any military officers there, or any men with experience in strategy? A colleague interjects that the right honorable member for Barton was there. I do not think that the right honorable gentleman would claim to be a military leader or a strategist. Honorable members opposite must admit that that conference was absolutely devoid of any sound advice as to the real merits of the situation, and acted only on grounds of political expediency. The delegates to that conference thought they might get the support of some weak-kneed Australians, but the Australian people are awake to those things. They are proud of their servicemen. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>I deplore the fact that a member of the Labour party said to-day that Australian men were going to Malaya to cause trouble. I do not wish to repeat statements .hat I have made in this chamber at other times, but constant repetition of statements, true or false, is a technique of the Labour party, so I shall have no hesitation now in repeating my view that no matter to what part of the world Australian troops have gone, they have been our finest ambassadors. Does any honorable member think they are going to Malaya on a quest for gain? Does anybody think they are going to try to out- rage a weaker nation by lawless conquest ? As I heard a politician say some years ago, "Let us thank God their mission is as pure and noble as any soldiers ever undertook to rid the world of would-be tyrants ". Let us have faith in our men. We must be proud of them, and try not to speak about them in a way that will detract from their renown; and as memory is a part of the human mind, let us always fight against any attempt to depreciate the story of their deeds of valour, or their renown, or honour in which we hold them. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1133</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate>Barton</electorate>
<party />
<role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I think that this debate has been very important and very interesting. The proposition put before the committee by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Crean),</inline> in form asked for a reduction of the vote for the defence services, which is the formal method of opening a debate on the defence policy of the Government and the foreign policy in which that defence policy is embedded. Nobody knows quite what the Government's foreign policy is. It is never enunciated. It has, of course, to be adapted to meet changing conditions, as everybody knows. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Let me refer to one or two minor points before I deal with the great question that has been debated to-day from various points of view, that is, the Government's foreign policy and whether it is right to do what the Government is doing. The minor points concern the actual expenditure of public money. We listened on Tuesday night to a speech by the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies),</inline> in which he outlined the condition of our economy and prophesied that great difficulties lay ahead of us. What are the facts about the defence votes for the previous two years? In 1953-54, the Parliament voted £200,000,000 for defence and the Government used £189,000,000. Taking into account the fact that £12,000,000 of the £189,000,000 was used for trust fund purposes, we see that, of the £200,000,000, no less than £23.000,000 was unexpended. That was a very large slice of the total vote - far more than 10 per cent, of it. </para>
<para>Then let us consider what happened in 1954-55. One would think that, in view of the experience of 1953-54, the Government would have got its officers to look more closely at the figures and make a better approximation of what would be spent. But no ! Again £200,000,000 was voted by the Parliament, trusting that the money would be spent and that the representations made to it were correct. What was actually used was £185,000,000. About £8,000,000 was paid into a trust fund. So in 1954-55 also £23,000,000 was unspent. There is nothing in these Estimates to indicate that, of the £190,000,000, which doubtless will be voted for defence this year, the sums unspent or devoted to trust funds at the end of the year will not be almost the same as in previous years. </para>
<para>If there was any justification at all for the analysis of the economy that was made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday night, this is no time to vote money unless we know how that money will be expended. That is the point that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has made. Why should the committee, without any examination of the matter, be ready to vote all that the Government asks for? But apparently the attitude is, " Never mind. We believe that the Government is asking for about £23,000,000 more than it will spend, but we shall vote it ". That is, in effect, the stand taken by those members of the committee who have uncritically accepted these Estimates. They must be analysed. But what kind of an analysis have we had? </para>
<para>I shall refer to one other matter that appears to call for some examination. I refer to the framework of the defence forces. I shall take the Army by way of illustration. At page 201 of the Estimates the framework of the Army is set out. We see the numbers of personnel from the Chief of the General Staff down to the gunners and privates. We see that in the Army there are approximately 24,000 people of all ranks, but we see also that there are more officers and non-commissioned officers down to the rank of corporal than there are men of lower ranks. There are more corporals, sergeants, staff sergeants and other people with ranks up to that of lieutenantgeneral than there are people below the rank of corporal. I do not claim to have any knowledge of the actual organization of the Army, but those figures require some explanation. I think the organization is top heavy. I think it is overloaded with high ranks, and I should like to know the explanation of that. </para>
<para>All through the day, the Opposition, having put this so-called provocative amendment before the committee, expected that it would be considered on its merits. Instead, the arguments advanced from this side of the chamber have been met with a torrent of abuse. The honorable member for Mallee <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Turnbull),</inline> who generally controls himself very well, except when he is talking about the prices of the commodities produced in his electorate, talked about the Hobart conference. I venture to say that he could not quote one clause of the propositions that were adopted by that conference. I should like the committee to allow me, in order to spread the information a little more widely, to incorporate the seventeen declarations of that conference in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline> I now ask formally for leave to do so. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
<name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is leave granted ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Honorable Members. - No. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- It would be very reasonable to read the document, would it not? I ask the honorable member for Mallee, to whom perhaps I may refer as the acting Parliamentary Secretary for Commerce and Agriculture, to consider how much better informed he would be if he did read it. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The right honorable gentleman may read so much of the document as relates to defence. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I could not possibly read all of it in the time at my disposal. I want to incorporate it in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I hear the honorable member for Yarra <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Keon)</inline> say " No ". As he has denounced the document, he should regard it as the best instrument with which to attack us. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- I want the Leader of the Opposition to read it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1134</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member want me to read all seventeen clauses? I will not do that. I will deal with the matter in my own way. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="italic">
<inline font-style="italic">Honorable members interjecting,</inline>
</para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
<name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! The noise on all sides of the chamber must stop. The Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Evatt)</inline> is entitled to a fair hearing. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Honorable Members. - Hear, hear ! </para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Order ! If I have to take action to obtain silence, there will be no " Hear, hears " then. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Like every other member of the Opposition, I have had to take it all day. Now I want to do a little dishing out, but I do not want the process to take too long, because my time is limited. All that I asked the committee to do was to allow me to incorporate these propositions in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> so that honorable members could read them. That was a reasonable request. I do not think that a similar request made under similar circumstances has been refused before. May I ask you, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline> to inquire whether there is any objection to the document being incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard11.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
<name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have asked, and there is an objection. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I heard a roar, but I did not hear a "No". The VicePresident of the Executive Council <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Eric Harrison)</inline> is waiting anxiously for the time when we shall discuss the St. Mary's project. He does not want the truth about this conference to come out. I shall read one or two of the declarations of the conference. How ridiculous it is for the corner party with which the honorable member for Yarra is associated to say that those declarations are proCommunist! If the Labour party advocates higher wages and higher margins for workers and if the Communist party says that it believes in those things too, he says that our policy is pro-Communist. I say that when the honorable member uses that argument, he is doing exactly what that remarkable American figure, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McCarthy,</inline> does. He is using the argument that, because a group of people support the view of a certain person, that person is linked with that group. To any intelligent person, that is a ridiculous argument. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to order. The Leader of the Opposition has said, in effect that I am a McCarthyite. As he has been the greatest smearer in this country for the last twelve months or so, I consider that he should withdraw that remark. Nobody is a better or a greater exponent of smearing and McCarthyism than he is. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! Is the honorable member objecting to being termed a "McCarthyite"? </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEON, Standish</name>
<name role="display">Mr Keon</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that term. </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1135</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I withdraw it, but I did not use it. I said that he was doing exactly what everybody associates with that name. He was permitted to describe our policy as communistic. However, I shall spend no more time on that matter. The Hobart conference formulated a positive programme. It dealt with the United Nations. The reference to Malaya was only one little incident in the whole programme. For instance, the conference declared - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>The development of atomic weapons has reached such dimensions that the peoples of the world are now faced with the stark and terrifying spectacle of a possible atomic world war causing a danger to the very fabric of the earth, its atmosphere and all its inhabitants which is so real that distinguished scientists refer to the prospect with a sense of " desperation ". </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Honorable members will recall the words of Einstein and other scientists a few months ago. The declaration went on as follows : - </para>
<quote>
<para>This desperation is partly due to the vacillation and delay in arranging high level political talks aiming at the effective prevention of the use of atomic and hydrogen bombs by any nation, whether for purposes of war or experimental purposes. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Is there any objection to that proposition? I hear none. I take it that only an idiot or a very wicked person could object to that declaration. The conference went on to say - </para>
<quote>
<para>Conference therefore directs the Federal Parliamentary Labour party to press for effective action directed towards these great ends. We are convinced that in years to come, a nation's true greatness will come to be measured by its courageous approach to the solution of these tremendous problems here and now. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That is our view on the admission of all applicant nations to the United Nations, and it is a principle that has been recently adopted in substance by this Government. </para>
<para>The declaration also deals with the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. The remarks of the honorable member for Yarra about that organization were completely untrue. The Labour party failed in its attempt to have the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Bill amended. The Hobart conference also declared that the conciliation processes prescribed by the Seato pact had not been properly employed. It was always a question of what force could be sent, not how the outbreak or extension of trouble could be prevented. In other words, the conference adopted the positive approach of conciliation and peace in a world in which a nuclear war would mean the destruction of humanity. That is the spirit of the Hobart declaration, and it is in accordance with that spirit that we must look at the decision in relation to Malaya. The decision on Malaya represented only one aspect of the policy adopted by the conference. </para>
<para>I do not think there are many clauses in the declaration to which objection could have been taken by even the most fanatical opponent of the proposition that there should be a peaceful co-existence of all nations. Then the declaration took up the Indo-China conflict as an illustration of what is bound to happen if nationalist movements are not recognized in time. France did not recognize the problem in Indo-China until it was too late, and the Communist organizations had control of the nationalist movement. The result was disastrous to democracy in a great part of that country. Does anybody deny that? Indo-China is typical of those Asian countries in relation to which inexcusable delay in recognizing a genuine nationalist, anticolonial, movement has resulted in communism capturing that movement and in democratic nationalism suffering a severe setback. The conference advocated generous assistance to all Asian people who suffer from poverty, disease, lack of educational facilities and the like. State ments to the effect that the use of Australian forces in Malaya would injure Australian relations with Asian neighbours and would in no way contribute to the prevention of aggression were true. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1136</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KDX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOSHUA, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joshua</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is a lot of rubbish. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1136</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>DTN</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
<name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member need not be so self-conscious when he says that. Those statements to which I have referred are true; they have been proved to be true. The policy that I have outlined is the policy of the Labour movement. It is the true policy for Australia. I am obliged to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports and my other colleagues for the vigorous and fair argument that they advanced against the slanders of the corner party on this side of the chamber, notably those of the honorable member for Yarra. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1136</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOL</name.id>
<electorate>WakefieldMinister for Defence</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Defence</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCBRIDE, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP MCBRIDE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I have attended the sittings of the Parliament in Canberra for many years, and I must say that I have never heard a more pathetic contribution to a discussion on defence Estimates from the leader of any party than that to which I have been listening to to-night. If I want any confirmation of my opinion, I need only look at the faces of the honorable members who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Evatt),</inline> and who show no signs of enthusiasm or support for his statements. The Parliament and the people generally are entitled to something better in a discussion on the defence Estimates. Consequently, before I deal with other aspects of defence to which reference has been made by the Leader of the Opposition and a few of his supporters, I wish to give to the committee and to the country a brief summary of the money that has been expended on defence since the Government assumed office, and of what has been achieved by that expenditure. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>I do not suggest that in the expenditure of more than £840,000,000 there have not been mistakes or waste, but I assert that every care has been taken by the administration to ensure that Australia has received the best possible value for the money expended. Since this Government assumed office, it has spent the following sums on defence: - In 1950-51, £93,000,000; in 1951-52, £159,400.000'; in 1952-53, £215,300,000; in 1953-54, £1S9,700,000; and in 1954-55, £185,500,000, a total expenditure for those five years of £840,900,000. For the information of the committee, I shall make a dissection of that expenditure. Of the total of £840,900,000, increased capital assets have accounted for £26S,200,000, or 32 per cent., and maintenance costs for £572,800,000, or 68 per cent. Of the total capital expenditure of £268,200,000, £190,000,000, or 23 per cent., has been devoted to the provision of new equipment or the modernization of existing equipment as in the case of naval vessels. Also included in the sum of £268,200,000 was £66,700,000, or 8 per cent., for buildings, works and acquisition of sites, and £11,500,000, or 1 percent. for machinery, plant and equipment for the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Supply and the Department of Defence. The expenditure of £572,S00,000 on maintenance included £101,500,000, or 13 per cent., for the maintenance of equipment, replacement stores, ammunition, and general stores of all kinds. The balance of £471,300,000, or 55 per cent., has been expended on pay, rations and general maintenance. </para>
<para>Much has been said about personnel. Let me remind the committee that when the Government assumed office in December, 1949, there were 34,000 members of the permanent forces. Those forces now total 52,000. The strength of the Citizen Military Force, including national service trainees, to the enlisting of whom the Opposition has been opposed all along the line, has risen from 22,000 to approximately 100,000. The national service training scheme, which was introduced by the Government in 1951, provides over 33,000 basically trained reserves each year. A total of almost 150,000 youths have been called up for training. Australia's first contribution towards the cold war operations was the expedition to Korea.Within a few days of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea in June, 1950, Australian forces were placed at the disposal of the United Nations for operations in that theatre. Subsequentlv, Australia has maintained the following forces in cold war areas overseas: - </para>
<para>Navy. - Two destroyers or frigates were maintained continuously in the Korean theatre until October, 1954, and one frigate has been maintained since that date. In addition, H.M.A.S. <inline font-style="italic">Sydney</inline> served two periods of duty there. </para>
<para>Army. - One infantry battalion and supporting elements have been maintained continuously in the Korean theatre. An additional infantry battalion served there between February, 1952, and November, 1954. </para>
<para>Air Force. - No.77 Fighter Squadron was maintained in the Korean theatre from the outbreak of hostilities until December, 1954. In addition, a transport unit, which has served there since March, 1951, was built up and maintained at squadron strength between April, 1953, and March, 1955, when it was reduced again to a single flight. </para>
<para class="block">The outstanding record of our forces in Korea bears witness to the gallantry, devotion and skill of the officers and men concerned, but it also reflects the efficiency and flexibility of the armed services as a whole. </para>
<para>A bomber squadron has been maintained continuously in Malaya since 1950 in anti-bandit operations, and a transport squadron was there from July, 1950, until its transfer to the Korean theatre in early 1953. In addition, a fighter wing of two squadrons was maintained in the Middle East from mid-1952 to early 1955. The peak strength of Australian forces overseas exceeded 5,000. </para>
<para>As announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year, Australia is participating with the United Kingdom and New Zealand in the establishment of a strategic reserve in Malaya. Australian forces in this reserve will comprise - </para>
<para>Navy. - Two destroyers or two frigates, an aircraft carrier on an annual visit, and additional ships in an emergency; </para>
<para>Army. - An infantry battalion with supporting arms, and reinforcements in Australia; and </para>
<para>Air Force. - A fighter wing of two squadrons, a bomber wing of one squadron and an airfield construction squadron. </para>
<para>Emphasis has been given to the provision of modern equipment for the forces, and as I have stated, 23 per cent. of total defence expenditure over the past five years falls under this heading. A feature of modern defence preparations, which has an important relation to the proposed defence vote, is the ever-increasing complexity and cost of weapons and equipment. To take examples, a post-war Mustang piston-engine fighter cost approximately £40,000 as compared with approximately £250,000 for a Sabre jet fighter of to-day. The cost of a presentday " Daring " class destroyer is over five times as great as that of the " Tribal " class destroyer of World War II. This trend seems likely to continue. I shall give some indication of what has been done to provide modern equipment for the services. In the Navy, the following ships are in commission: - One aircraft carrier (operational). The new one which is nearing completition will be of the most modern type; one training ship (the second carrier will be used for this role on a non-flying basis) ; four destroyers ; seven frigates ; five ocean minesweepers; and various auxiliary craft. In addition, a substantial reserve fleet is being maintained in good condition against any future emergency. Some 147 aircraft have been delivered to the Fleet Air Arm since June, 1950, and it is shortly to be re-equipped with modern Sea Venom and Gannet aircraft for which orders were placed some time ago. The aircraft carrier H.M.A.S. <inline font-style="italic">Melbourne</inline> is nearing completion in the United Kingdom and a fleet tanker has just been completed there. Local construction in. progress includes three " Daring " class ships and four modern anti-submarine frigates at present on order, together with two inshore minesweepers and other miscellaneous vessels. Also since 1950, a " Battle " class destroyer has been completed, and two " Q " class destroyers have been converted to fast antisubmarine frigates while two more are in course of conversion. The modernization of two " Tribal " class destroyers, and eleven ocean minesweepers out of a total of twelve, has been completed. </para>
<para>The equipment acquired for the Army since June, 1950, includes over 100 Centurion tanks, 130 other armoured fighting vehicles, and 2,700 mechanical transport vehicles. During the last financial year, new orders to the extent of £21,000?000 were placed for additional high-priority items of equipment. A further £8,000,000 was paid to the Defence Equipment Trust Account for Army equipment or additional production capacity. As mentioned earlier, the adoption of the new FN .300 rifle has been approved, and plans are in hand for its production in Australia, together with the necessary ammunition. </para>
<para>A total of over 300 aircraft has been delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force since June, 1950. At the present time, Canberra jet bombers, Avan Sabre jet fighters, and Vampire jet trainers are in production and are being supplied to the Royal Australian. Air Force. In addition, Meteors and Neptunes have been, obtained from overseas. Production of the Winjeel trainer has also begun. The re-equipment of the Air Force with the various types of aircraft is a continuous progressive task planned years ahead. In this connexion, to establish the replacement types of aircraft required, a mission representative of the department of Air, the Department of Defence Production, and the aircraft industry, recently visited the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the recommendations of this mission are now under consideration. </para>
<para>In the defence production field, progress has been made in the expansion of production capacity and the replacement and modernization of existing facilities. Total expenditure from the 1st July, 1950, to the 30th June, 1955, on this programme exceeded £12,000,000. There is also the £23,000,000 filling factory at St. Mary's, near Sydney, on which an immediate start has been made. The Long Range Weapons Establishment, which is a joint project with the United Kingdom for the testing and development of guided weapons, continues to be the main feature of the research and development programme. The total expenditure by Australia on this project since its inception to the end of last financial year exceeded £44,000,000, including £33,000,000 since June, 1950. </para>
<para>It is essential to a sound defence programme to maintain a proper balance between man-power and equipment and productive capacity, within the overall defence vote that the country can sustain. The Government's programme does this in a most effective manner. An efficient service organization has been built up, including fighting forces, and command training and maintenance elements capable of rapid expansion in time of war. A high standard of training has been achieved and despite some deficiences, the forces are better equipped than they were when the Government came into office. </para>
<para>That is the progress that has been made by the Government in relation to defence. While a good deal was said by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Evatt)</inline> on other occasions about wastefulness, and his belief that at this time this expenditure is not necessary, I should like to remind honorable members that the Leader of the Opposition, in making these statements, is following precisely Labour policy over the years. I remind honorable members that when the Lyons Government was in office, in 1938, there was held what was known as the Munich conference. From that conference, it was suggested that peace would ensue. But that was not the opinion of the Government of this country, nor was it the opinion of the governments of any of the other democratic countries. They did not reduce their defence efforts from then on ; they continued them. The Australian Government suggested an increase of the defence expenditure which, I admit, was very low at that time. Speaking from memory, I think it was in the region of 9,000,000. However, the then Leader of the Opposition, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtin,</inline> opposed an increase of defence expenditure to £16,000,000. When I make that statement, I am not reflecting in any way on the Leader of the Opposition of that day. t have a tremendous admiration for him, because when it paid him to change his principles, he did so. However, at that time he was following not what I believe to be the teaching of his experience but this rigid Labour policy of not developing our defences but relying on talking people into peace. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Curtin</inline> said in this Parliament on the 2nd November, 1938 - </para>
<quote>
<para>I say that any increase of defence expenditure after the Munich pact, so far as Australia is concerned, appears to me to be an utterly unjustifiable and hysterical piece of panic propaganda. That is what I say in respect of the alarmist statements that have been made. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">What a comparison! The Geneva conference has been held and following that conference, the present Leader of the Opposition said in his speech on the budget quite recently - </para>
<quote>
<para>Again I think the present international situation not only permits but actually demand* a very substantial reduction in the defence expenditure of this country. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">They run parallel! They have not moved! They have learnt nothing from their experiences over the years ! The Leader of the Opposition was reluctant, initially, to state a figure, but later he became more expansive. In an impromptu effort after the speech of the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> on Tuesday, he did mention a figure. He said - </para>
<quote>
<para>Government expenditure has to be cut down and the point where it could be cut down, as we have mentioned before, is the extravagant and wasteful expenditure under the Defence vote. That could be cut to a very large extent, and £40,000,000 could easily be saved in that way. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">Did he give one atom of justification for that statement? It was simply in line with the right honorable gentleman's general procedure. He makes statements, hoping to curry political favour with the unthinking, but he has never yet been able to justify to this Parliament any of the statements he has made. Consequently, I say that the people of this country have already made their estimate of this man's value and I have no doubt about what will happen at the next election. </para>
<para>We have heard a great deal about the foreign policy of this country, and about how we should, by our foreign policy, so appease the probable enemies of Australia that they will not attack us. Surely we have not forgotten that it was proved to the people of this country- </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1139</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>6V4</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DALY, Fred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Daly</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to order. Is it in order for the Minister deliberately to take the debate outside the Estimates for the departments now under consideration? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1139</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
<name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! The Minister may continue. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1139</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCBRIDE, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP McBRIDE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Australian people will not forget the experience that they had in the last war. That experience proved to them that Australia cannot defend itself unaided. This Government has undoubtedly succeeded in attracting help from other countries. We were able to negotiate the Anzus Pact with the United States of America and New Zealand, and we are a signatory to the Seato treaty. But does anybody imagine that those countries which are signatories to those agreements will come to our aid in time of need if we ourselves have not played our justifiable part? I point out to honorable members, whatever the alleged Labour party of this country might think about the international situation, that all those countries to which we shall look for aid in time of need are not merely maintaining their defence expenditure, which is exceedingly high, but in some cases are increasing it at this time. In Australia, we spent, as the Estimates show, £1S5,500,000 last year on defence. We are budgeting for an expenditure of £190,000,000, or an increase of £4,500,000 this year. Canada, a country almost under the umbrella of the United States, a country which at least perhaps could " sit back in the breeching " if it felt so inclined, is increasing its defence expenditure from 1,680,000,000 last year to 1,775,000,000 this year. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1140</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYV</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fuller</name>
</talker>
<para>- Dollars or pounds? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1140</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCBRIDE, Philip</name>
<name role="display">Sir PHILIP McBRIDE</name>
</talker>
<para>- They are Canadian dollars. The United Kingdom, which has borne an exceedingly heavy burden by way of reconstruction and rehabilitation programmes, spent £1,639,900,000 sterling on defence last year. This year, the expenditure of that country will be a little less, but it still will be the huge sum of £1,537,000,000.. The United States, with an exorbitant expenditure of 40,644,000,000 dollars last year will be spending 40,458,000,000 dollars on defence this year. Little New Zealand, alongside us, a country which budgeted for £25,000,000 last year, is proposing to spend £29,000,000 this year. Does anybody suggest that we can do less in those circumstances? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>Let me put it in another way. What it means is that Australia is spending 4.8 per cent, of its national income on defence, while Canada is spending 9.5 per cent., the United Kingdom 9.9 per cent, and the United States of America 13.5 per cent. I ask in all sincerity, does Australia expect those countries with which we have agreements, those countries from which we shall expect some assistance in time of war, to come to our aid if we have not played our part? The Leader of the Opposition is the only man in public life throughout the democratic world who believes that the international situation has improved to that extent. As always, Johnny is the only one in step. The Australian people should beware of the catch-cry to save on defence expenditure and spend the money elsewhere at a time when, should war break out, this country would be under a dire threat. We hear a great deal about the likelihood that war will not now take place because of the development of atomic and hydrogen bombs. Nothing is further from the truth. Does any one imagine that the people of Indo-China, South Viet Nam and Laos think that there can be no war ? Does any one imagine that the people of Korea believe that war is impossible? Of course a war can occur. The best justification for saying that is the fact that the Communist countries are not reducing their defence effort. In conventional weapons they outstrip all the democratic countries combined. Moreover, they have at their command huge resources of man-power. They have achieved this by telling the people that they shall have guns instead of butter. In those countries, the development of atomic and conventional weapons continues apace. </para>
<para>Australia would be foolish to underestimate the position. While we all hope that there will not be a third world war, no one can, with justification, say that there will be no war in the immediate future. This Government, while providing the maximum defence effort that Australia can sustain, is doing everything in its power to create in the international sphere peaceful relationships that will bring peace in their train. The honorable member for East Sydney <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Ward)</inline> is doubtless annoyed that my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Casey)</inline> has, in season and out, extended the olive branch and supported his gesture by action as well as words. From other quarters all we have received is words. Following the top-level conferences at Geneva there have been further negotiations, but nothing, concrete has been evolved. We have had disarmament conference after disarmament conference, and discussions are still continuing. We sincerely hope that something will come from them. W e shall play our part. We shall show the Communist countries that we desire peace and are prepared to accept peaceful co-existence, but until they give us something more than words Australia cannot possibly reduce its defence expenditure. </para>
<para>It is quite futile to discuss this matter as the Opposition has done to-day. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Crean)</inline> was the only honorable member who attempted to make any contribution to the discussion, and he could do no more than move that the vote for the Department of Defence be reduced by fi. The Leader of the Opposition tried to explain the amendment, but he spent so much time in explaining the resolution passed at the Hobart conference that he did not really tell us very much about the amendment. </para>
<para>We have heard a great deal to-day about the ill feeling allegedly caused by the decision to send Australian troops to Malaya. It is most curious that the Opposition said not a word when Australia sent naval and air forces to that part of the world. Units of those services have been fighting terrorists in Malaya for the last five years. Have they created any ill feeling towards Australia in that country? Of course they have not. <inline font-style="italic">Now</inline> it is suggested that that will be the result if Australia makes its contribution to the strategic reserve which is being built up, with the co-operation of New Zealand and Great Britain, in order to deter external aggression towards Malaya. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Allan Eraser)</inline> said that he had substantial evidence that the proposal was resented by the Malayan people. I suggested then, and I repeat now, that the only evidence that he had was obtained from the <inline font-style="italic">Tribune.</inline> Let us look at the opinions of responsible persons who represent the people of Malaya. The position is interesting because there have been elections in Malaya since the proposal was first made, and the voters have expressed their views on this and other matters. I might mention that the troops are in Malaya and not Singapore, though there was no objection on that score either. The three parties that supported the sending of Australian troops to Malaya won 52 of the 58 seats in respect of which voting took place. Moreover, the Chief Minister in the new government, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Tenku</inline> Rahman, had this to say over the radio on the subject - </para>
<quote>
<para>The intention of the Australian troops here was not because they wanted to use this country as a training ground or to make it a battle field but only to help to safeguard the peace of this country. Especially at this time the Australians realize that Malaya is progressing towards independence quickly with whatever help they can give us. They say if Malaya is independent on the same status as they are, they can be friends with us and help each other. Their relations with us would be very close. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">I am more inclined to accept the view of that gentleman than anything that appears in the <inline font-style="italic">Tribune</inline> or is quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, or any one else on that side of the chamber. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KGX</name.id>
<electorate>Parkes</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HAYLEN, Leslie</name>