" NO CONFIDENCE" MOTION
Statement in the House of Representatives by the Rt, Hon,
the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies on fednesday, 3rd
April, 1963.
Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Batman
( Mr. Benson) is a very experienced pilot but he will forgive
me when I say that during his speech I was very much struck
by the fact that he was steering a course that gave the
impression that he was shifting about in a five-knot ebb tide
in the rip of Point Lonsdale. He will understand exactly what
that means. I think he has fallen into the common error of
thinking that referring a matter to the United Nations is in
itself a constructive policy. Time after time it has become
necessary to say that it is not. To go to the United Nations
with a policy is one thing but to fall into the habit of saying
that Cuba, for example, should have gone to the United Nations
or that something else should hcve gone to the United Nations
is not a policy at all. It is a more evasion of national
responsibility and of national decision.
The honourable member permitted himself to comment
adversely he is not the only one to do so on the Opposition
side about President Kennedy's handling of the Cuba incident
and about this Government's instant declaration that we agreed
with what President Kennedy had done. what do honourable members
opposite want us to do? want to witness one of the really
significant events in postwar history, a critical event which,
if it had not been dealt with promptly and strongly by the
President of the U. So, night have altered the whole balance of
power in the worldo When the President of the USo. took in
splendid terms a strong and definite attitude on these matters
honcurable members opposite say, " Oh, it should have gone to the
United Nations." I wonder whether honourable members know what
they mean, Do they mean that the matter should have gone to
the Security Council so that it could have boon neatly vetoed
by the Soviet Union? That would have occupied a certain amount
of time. In the meantime, the Soviet Union would have continued
to put its weapons its missiles into Cuba, building a base
close to the U. S. which could alter the entire balance of power
in the world. Is that what honourable members opposite mean?
No doubt it is. Then they would say: " Now that you come to
mention it, of course the Soviet Union would veto it and so it
would come to nothing. But then you can go to the Assembly and
have a fortnight's debate. You can have all of the Communist
satellites lined up and speech after speech made. All the time
the Communist position in Cuba is being built up until ultimately
the balance of power in the world is upset.
Mr. Speaker these are very serious matters and if
the Opposition's attitude is that the President of the U. S. was
wrong and that we were wrong to be the first people to give our
approval to the U. S, action, then the people of Australia might
know about this. I think they will, and I think they might think
about it. They might v.; onder whether they should entrust not
only their economic affairs but also their security and their
entire future to the people on the other side of this Parliament.
S.. o o / 2
2-
Noiw., Sir, I speak as some sort of an expert on
this matter. There are two objectives in the " no confidence"
motion I know; I have been at the giving end and at the
receiving end. There are two objectives and one is to put the
Government out. That is an admirable attitude for an Opposition
to have and it has taken an awful long time for this Opposition
to decide on that attitude. But there it is to put the
Government out. The other, of course, is, immediately or
otherwise, to put the Opposition in. This would not be an
unfair analysis to put us out and to put you in.
For the purposes of simplicity I therefore propose
to provide my ovam contribution tonighit into these twro aspects.
I will say something about the first of them. I do not need
to say as much as I otherwise would because later on in this
debate my colleagues the Minister for Trade ( Mr. McEwen) and
the Treasurer ( Mr. Harold Holt) will have admirable opportunities
of dealing in detail with some of these matters. But I will
not entirely let them go by.
I therefore start by saying something about putting
the Government out and the reasons for it. My distinguished
friend the Leader of the Opposition ( 1r. Calwoll) has, of
course, a professional gloom about the Australian econo. y. It
is his duty to be depressed and, if possible, to depress other
people. He therefore gave us a professionally gloomy account
of Australia's present economic condition which was so much
at variance with the facts as to be almost too ludicrous.
I hope it was read overseas by people in other countries.
They would, of course, burst into hilarious laughter, on looking
at their own countries, to be told about this one which is in
a state of economic disaster and depression.
Mr. O'Brien That is not true.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Of course that is not true. After all,
the Leader of the Opposition was careful to admit from his
attack I will call it an attack all the material factors
in the economic position. I do not recall him saying anything
about the remarkable success of the Government's policy against
inflation. There is laughter on both sides of the Chamber.
I am familiar with all those chaps. They laugh on both sides
of their faces. In one sense, members opposite laugh because
they have always said inflation is silly talk and that it is
a bogey and on the other side they laugh because they are not
very pleased to have to admit in their hearts that the consumer
price index has been stable now for years.
Mr. Ward How does it compare with 1949?
SIR ROBERT MENZIES I always know that I am scoring when
some of you yell. But I do not worry myself about that. I
am not addressing myself to the honourable member for East
Sydney. Whenever I have addressed myself to East Sydney I
have had to have police protection.
We have a stable consumer price index. In other
words, the inflationary processes in this country which were
desperately dangerous a few years ago have been brought under
control. Not a word about that. Not a word about the
remarkable increase in the employment in Australia; not a word
about the remarkable increase in production in Australia. / 3
-3-
It is all right. Some of the new boys will learn in due course
that a few facts are much more important than some of the
arguments that they present and even they cannot deny that
there has been a most remarkable increase in production in
this country in the last few years and a most remarkable
increase in savings in this country, I go back a little while
and I can remember Mr. Pollard Back to the eighteenth century.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES And it was a very good century. Do you
know why, Sir? Because it was a century of good sense.
Mr. Allan Fraser You are an eighteenth century
Prime Minister.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES " Indeod", says the honourable member,
" an eighteenth century Prime Minister." All I can say is that
at the tail end of the eighteenth century they had some very
good Prime Ministers and he might have been proud to be one
of them. But he has forgotten his history. As I was saying,
there have been increased savings. I can remember the time
when my distinguished opponent, the Leader of the Opposition,
used to say " Look at the way savings have fallen away. This
is a sign that the Government is ineffective." Now, when he
looks and sees that there are record savings, with another
œ 2,000,000 in the savings banks he says " That is no good.
This is a sign that people have no confidence in the future."
You cannot satisfy some of these people. He does not say a
word about the development works programme, except in one
respect that I will come to in a minuteo He does not say
a word about the record home building in Australia, an undoubted
undeniable fact. He does not say a word about the record
activity in building construction business construction
in the cities not a word, Ho does not say a word about the
public credit being high both here and overseas. He does not
say a word about interest rates falling. He does not say a
word except a hostile word about investment in this country
from overseas. He does not say a word about the remarkable
and increasing growth in the export of manufactures from
Australia nothing about these. Yet the fact is and
wherever you go you can encounter it that there is an
increasing feeling in this country, oven among those who were
critical, that the Government's policy has been right and
that confidence in this country is building up every week and
every month. Now, Sir having said that because I do not want to
take up too much of my time on it and there will be other people
who can deal with the details of this matter
Mr. Cope You have gone a bit flat.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES I have always noticed that when you are
afriad to listen you make a noiseo Nowr, Sir, in the course of
his speech the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to
make a glancing reference or two to me. At one stage he said
that I was reported to have told my Federal executive something.
All I can say is that I had never heard of the report until he
mentioned it last night and it was quite untrue. I am sorry
that he should read things from the gossip columns. He also
referred to mo, and this fascinated me because I do not know
whether it was a compliment or a subdued attack, as " the sole
triton of post-war Liberalism". o 14
4
Mr. OtBrien That was a compliment.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES I suppose he meant to con rey the
impression that I was a triton among the minnows. This, I
think, is overdoing it. Being a triton among the minnows is
supposed to be a compliment to me and an offence to those
who for so many years have been with me in the problems of
this country. All I want to say to the honourable member
he has exposed his flank a little on this is that to be
a triton among the minnows is not half so bad as being a
minnow among the 36 tritons who form the Labour Party and
that is what, by concession, he is. He is the minnow swimming
in and around among the tritons and coming up occasionally
if a fish can listen and listening and diving down again;
the minnow amont the 36 tritons.
Mr. Einfeld What do you
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Thank hoaven you were not one of them;
otherwise there would have beun 35 tritons.
I want to draw attention to just one point about
this devastating " no confidence" motion. There are a dozen
points I could deal with, but I have time to deal with only
one. In a remarkable exercise of reasoning, the Leade:-of
the Opposition conceded what had been done. In fact, he
rehearsed it. He referred to substantial increases in loan
money for State works, including of course housing; Federal
works; selected development projects; special non-repiyable
grants, most of which were in aid of employment; reduction
of income tax; reduced sales tax on motor vehicles, which
has produced the most extraordinary activity in the motor
veiicle industry: increased employment benefit and investment
allowances, le then disclosed the perfect, old-fashioned,
dead-as-the-dodo socialist mind by saying, " Not one of those
measures was designed to help the ordinary wage earners of
this country." I hope that everybody in Australia will read
that and ponder on it. Apparently, if we increase loan
moneys, increase State works, increase housing and increase
Federal works, this will be no good to the worker. That is his
proposition. Those activities have nothing to do with the
wage earner. Development projects such as Mt. Isa, the
lostern Australian Railway or coal loading equipment at
Gladstone and other ports, are no good to the wage earner.
How odd that is. I always thought these things ware done by
having people work on the job and being paid for it and by
buying materials and having people paid to produce hem.
But the Leader of the Opposition says, " No, they are no good."
He referred to the reduced sales tax on motor vehicles. I
ask you, Sir. Here we had an industry that had sustained a
considerable reduction of production as a result of the
policies we found neces3ary and the reduced sales tax together
with the general restoration of industrial help has enabled it
to employ thousands and thousands more people, not only
directly but indirectly. The leader of the socialist party
stands up and says 0000
Mr. O'Brien Not socialist.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Is it not that any longer? Ohft He
stands up and says that none of these things is any good to
tha wage earner. I leave it at that because I want to say
something about some other matters. So far I have said only
a little on the matter of putting the Government out. Now
I would like to say something aboub the problem of putting
the Opposition in, which is the other object of the exercise.
If Labour is to go in, I think it is essential thatrot only
we but also the people of Australia should know where they
stand on the great issues confronting this countryo I have
already explained that they do not quite know where they stand
even on matters on which they attack us. But where do they
stand on the matters on which I propose to attack them? They
are putting themselves forward, as the alternative Government.
Apparently they do so very confidently more confident today
than they will be in a month's time; more confident in a
month's time than they will be in a year's time. They know.
They are not so silly as all that. However, they are putting
themselves forward as the new Government. Now, Sir, what
kind of a Government would this Labour Government be?
Mr. Costa A good one,
SIR ROBERT MENZIES If you are in it, I will be delighted.
But what kind of a government would it be? The government, of
course, would be the tired spokesman of 36 outsiders, none
of them elected by the Australian people and any nineteen of
them able to control the minds and the voices of a Labour
government. As the honourable member for Higinbotham ( Mr.
Chipp) said this afternoon, this is what is called democracy.
It may have been different in the days when Labour had strong
leaders, but it is not today when Labour has leaders who bow
in the corridors and who wait for their orders and who then
proceed as best they can to carry out their orders. In other
words, the country is not being offered by Labour a government
of people who will attack problems, exercise their own
judgments and stand by their judgment, but people who will
look around the corner and say to these obscure nonentities
who give them their orders, " Please, what is it we are allowed
to do. That is as clear as a pikestaff, and if it needed to
be made clear, my honourable friend with his deputy leader
made it clear at the last Federal Conference of the Australian
Labour Party. A more humiliating spectacle could hardly be
imaginedl Mro Pollard That is not what you said to Bry,
You said, " Do it or else" o
SIR ROBERT MENZIES: That was a Prime Minister; he was the
leader. He was not a Prime Minister who had to go away to
36 people and say, " Ploase oblige me by telling meo"
Mr. Allan Fraser You are a one-man government.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES The honourable member for Eden Monaro
keeps muttering about a one-man government. If I am the Prime
Minister of this country, I am the Prime Minister because the
people have elected my supporters, who have chosen me. There
is no parallel on my side of politics to this outside control
by a group of 36, or any other number you care to choose,
completely irresponsible people to whom the so-called leaders
of the country would have to make their obeisance.
The next comment I make about the Australian Labour
Party, which wants to come in, is: Where does it stand on
Malaya? After all, this country is a pretty remote country
in the world. This country, as the whole of experience has
shown, cannot in great emergencies be its own solo defender.
It must do its best, but it cannot be its own sole defender. / 6
6
!: 1e have all found that time after time, and therefore we have
a lively interest in what goes on
Mr. Uren Who did you
SIR ROBERT MENZIES If you do not mind I know your views
are so far left of mine that I see them in a sunset haze.
I know the honourable member is a little touchy on this, because
it is he who has said it has been quoted that there is
nothing to fear from Communist China, it has no ambitions.
It is like Hitler; it has no territorial ambitions. It is
not pressing on South-East Asia. That is the view of the
honourable member for Reid, but who accepts it? Who, looking
at what goes on in South-East Asia, could believe such sorry
nonsense for half a minute. It is important, therefore, to
know where Labour stands on Malaya, which happens to be a
British country and a country of the Commonwealth of Nations
not so very far to our north, friendly and loyal.
The last decision they made and I cannot discover
that it has ever be-n altered is that the Australian
components of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve in Malaya
should be withdrawn. Now, I will be delighted to know whether
that is still true. Apparently it is, A great silence falls
over the ranks of the Labour Party. So, let it be observed by
everybody concerned that by their silence they admit that that
is still their policy. They will be given an opportunity
overnight to find out from what is the chapts name?
Chamberlain. But after all, the last authentic remark on this
issue was made by the honourable member for Parkes ( Mr. Haylen)
and as a front-bencher and as a loyal observer of the Constitution
of the Labour Party what Lh said must be right. It must
be official. He said, " We on this side of the chamber are
assailed for saying that our troops ought to get out of Malaya.
What has Malaya to do with us?"
This is the Labour PartyJ What has Malaya to do with
usl In other words, we cannot, says the Labour Party care
less what happens in Malaya, Wo cannot care less if Malaya
is over-run by the Communists. And, indeed, they had the
non-aggressive Chinese Communists conducting activities of
insurgency in Malaya and it was one of the honours of our
battalion in Malaya from time to time to take part in resisting
these people and in tracking them down. But the Labour Party
says, " What has Malaya got to do with us?"
Take their attitude towards the creation of Malaysia,
This is very well described in that splendid newspaper, the
Melbourne " Age" cnly this morning in a leading article. I
will undertake to read a few lines from what the newspaper
said because it puts it to perfection. It said, speaking
about the Labour Party and its policy, now handed out in
writing in W. A. by the boss weeks afterwards
It believes in effective " decolonization"
It is extraordinary how loft-wingwrs love these long words.
Effective decolonization. The article continues
of the three northern Borneo territories, but
it passes no judgment on the proposal for incorporating
British Borneo in Malaysia."
And that is true Not a word about it. Silence. The Leader
0** e 0 / 7
7-
of the Opposition incautiously said recently, when he was a
free man that he thought it was a good idea, But now now.
Nothing but silence now on that front. The " Age" article
continues " The Partyts attitude towards Malaysia appears to
the outsider to be mere double talk, and its
failure to recognize the importance of the Commonwealth
Strategic Reserve suggests a refusal to face
facts."
Then the " Age" goes on, charitably I think, to say
" Flexibility is a useful quality in strange ways but
it does not mean evading or postponing decisions.
What the conference failed to give was a clearly
formulated and presented foreign policy for a party
which is Australia's alternative government."
And then, with a superb but delicate touch of irony, the " Age"
article concludes " Its Parliamentary leaders were entitled to expect
more"
I think this is gorgeous. I really think this is the finest
journalistic sentence I have read this year
" Normally the people expect the Parliamentary leaders
of a great party to give a lead, to expound ideas in
the partyto take decisions on policy."
Then the " Age" with all its charity, says in the final paragraph
" What a pity because the Parliamentary leaders of
the Labour Party are not as other men. They have to
be given something by Chamberlain and company and
really it is very disappointing that they were not
given more."
This, Sir, I think. is not only a piece of delicate irony but in
its fashion quite superb.
Now, Sir, my time goes on and therefore I pass on to
the next thing on which I am curious about the Labour Party's
attitude. The Labour Party, this prospective government, the
one that wants to come into office
Mi. Einfeld Inevitably,
SIR ROBERT MENZIES I do not object, my dear fellow, to your
cheering yourself up in this fashion, I would in your position.
Personally I wish you well. I think you would make a very good
whatever-it-is. The Labour Party wants to have a nuclear-free
zone south of the equator. May I take it that that is still
Labour Party policy?
Mr. Einfeld Hear! Hear.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Thank you very much. I knew that if I
were nice to you, you would respond. This is still the Labour
Party's policy. Of course, this idea of having an area south
of the equator and round the world in which no nuclear weapons
can be deployed sounds very attractive and a lot of Labour .6.0./ 8
8-
people think tkcA the people at l1argQ-e Wrill be deceived into
thinking that+ all th& t ire;; n.: 1tF Austraiia will not hersel f
ave nuclear weapons, OfL course, that is just a patfietic
ouitlook on it, The fact; is thiat a nuclear-free zone south of
the equator if' you could get away with it. i~ f you could get
the other people of the southern hemisphecre to agree to it
would. mean that no nuclear weapons coul'id be deployed even in
our defence, southi of the equator,
Mr. Einfeld No.
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Ohl This is fascinating0 So a. ll we say
to the United States Of Ameri ca,, for exampla a great nuclear
power or to Great Britain is: " We are not going to have you
south. of thne eq-uator except, of course, if we get iinto trouble.
There is a level -w
Mr. Elinfeld You are clcwning about this,'
SIR ROB7ERT TMENZIT2S 1 air notu cl. owning, I a7m talking about
a matter so serious thiat you ought to be as haimed of yourself
for treating it as a joke,
Mr. Knfeld -You 31' 13 oiown_~ r: Lng,
SIR ROMRT MENZIES C 1 o ng,~ I am te" ling thie Labour r'arty
in this place that if their nu-clear--free area southa of the
equa7tor evier came into operation and were sup-ported. by the
people of Australia, th--at would be natio-nal suicide. The trouble
witha the hotnourable memiber forL Phaiip ] Einfel.) ithte
will not face up to th1. e facts. He likes to avo-id thom,, The
fact is and do not run away fCrom . t tou fa -tat if are3
going to have as our al:. es the United States of Arerica and the
Unit,: d KIngdom thoso groat powecrs whaich hiave nucicar strength,
one of w,, hich, the rjnitc-d S ttes of Amrcpcssesse8 the
Polaris subma,-rines -wlnltch ir a rdo wor'd withi the Opposition
and will havre -them-4n the Indian Ocean, areo wO to say to
thiem "~ L. ook whatcvor Lpc., you undorstand that no n7-uclear
weapon i~ s to be disc1harged by you or controclo~ d by you fo
Ausraia trrto'y -bcauseth e Labour Party says it is not
to haPpenr. V TvIroo'e I th!-ose.--eacaful Comm: runist C.-. inese
t1De non-aggressors . In V4-ot 0a1n1d( m Ios 1
Mr. Pollard tu ec. g-
SIR RO. QBTRT MENZTES Listen for a while; it will do you no
harm,, If these people become involved La. war and thea United
States of ITmrica is alongsido of us, wostandI right in the
southwoa-td tr. ack of theose rno-Nemnts, are we to say to them that
althnoughi people north of the equator can use intercontinental
ballistic missiles and oernuclear wansno Austra-lian
government is going to all3ow the Un-Lted. States of fmrica to
use this as a base for countor attack? Does it not mean thiat?
If it does not mean th~ a;, perhaps tho honcur-: ablo member for
Phillip will be good enough some time to explain to us what
4, t does mean, Mr. Ein-feld I will give you instruct-ion in this
any timre, Mr. O'Brien T1 will be very simplpe, too, aCO* OS0/
-9-
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Yes, it will be very simple. I quite
agree. The truth of the matter is that the Labour Party has
to give up trying to have it both ways. You advocate a
nuclear-free zone south of the equator, because this pleases
your Communist supporters, and then, in the next breath, to
satisfy your right-wingers, who are sensible and decent people,
you say, " That does not mean what it says". What in the name
of fortune does it mean?
Perhaps the honourable member for the Australian
Capital Territory ( Mr. J, R. Fraser) who is interjecting, might
devote some of his attention to writing a powerful article for
the " Canberra Times", explaining that this does not mean that
nuclear weapons cannot be deployed from Australian territory,
even though Australia is under attack, Mr, Speaker, if you
can hear me over the gutter noises of East Sydney, I just want
to say that the attitude of the Labour Party's conference to
the North West Cape installation is of a piece with the
isolationism exhibited in that party's attitude cowards a
nuclear-free zone. It is a natural corollary. Opposition
members now say, I think, that by a vote of nineteen to seventeen
they got something through which disappointed us. I hope they
have all read what they got through.
You know, Sir, there is a very odd thing about this
last Labour Party conference. On the matter of North West
Cape a matter of immediate and vital importance to the
people of Australia no written document was handed out at
all, Did honourable members notice that? On the contrary, the
master naturally not the Leader of the Opposition came out
and read to the press, quite quickly, from a piece of paper.
That is all they have ever had. I thought at the time, " This
is pretty good, because this will always give them the
opportunity of saying that they ewre misreported and that that
was not what they decided." The other day, in the fastnesses
of Perth Mr. Harding What is wrong with Perth?
SIR ROBERT MENZIES Nothing, It is one of the finest cities
in Australia. I have always had an ambition to live there. I
am thinking of that quite seriously. All I can say is that in
the fastnesses of Porth the master produced, in writing, the
decisions that the conference had made. There was nothing in
the document about North 1est Cape. Of course, Sir, the whole
basis of this thing is that the Labour Party has gone back,
after a much better interlude at one time to its isolationist
attitude towards the problems of the world. It wants to say
to the Unitea States, " Certainly we do not mind your spending
on a radio communications station. That is very nice.
Thank you very much, do not mind your using it for naval
communications in time of peace as long as we are the joint
owners and managers, although we will not pay for it. But if
the occasion occurs when you really need naval communications
more than at any other time, then, although you are our
associate in ANZUS and SEATO and we know, as people of common
sense, that you and your friendship are vital to us, we want
you to understand that you cannot use the station urdss the
Australian Government of the day happens to say that you can,"
I have heard a lot of people saying that the establishment
of this station is an invasion of our sovereignty. Our
sovereignty has been invaded before, as the Labour Government 0 00 0 0
10
of the past well knows I suppose it was an invasion of
our sovereignty when all the forces in Australia were put
under a foreign command. Nobody complained about that,
It was a jolly good cause. Is it not a fact also that this
technical sovereignty of ours was so far invaded that members
of the American forces, although they were in Austlalia and
might commit crimes in Australia, were removed from the
jurisdiction of the Australian courts and placed under
American jurisdiction? I am not complaining about that.
I would have done exactly the same thing under the same
circumstances. But this, we are now told, is the kind of
thing that is an invasion of our sovereignty. The Labour
Party of those days understood pretty wel that to subtract
from your own sovereignty by exercising it in favour of a
friend is much more important than losing it all to an
enemy. Mr, McGuren Who criticised the Government?
SIR ROBERT MENZIES 1 do not know. I did not. If it is
any comfort, I say to you now that that was right. Why do
you now say it was wrong? have heard all this cackle
about sovereignty and we lhave heard it said that we must
not allow the AJericans to come in here and have rights,
Finally, Sir, with three minutes to go
Mr. Armitage Economic issues?
SIR ROBERT MENZIES No. I am dealing with issues which you
detest but which will determine in the minds of the Australian
people whether you will get an opportunity to ruin this
country. Apart from paying lip-service to the United Nations,
where does the Labour Party stand? Why, it was only in 195
that Dr. Evatt proposed to save 40M from the defence vote,
so he obviously thought that it was much too much. The
hcnourable member for Reid ( M r. Uren) pithily expressing
himself in 1960, said, "' DisarmS" In October, 1960, in the
same debate, the honourable member for Lalor ( Mr. o ollard)
said that a police force, pending the arrival of the United
Nations, was all that we needed. The honourable member for
Lao is a gallant and distinguished member of this Parliament,
Ho is an old friend of mine, But he was exhibiting a point
of view on this matter, In October, 1960, the honourable
member for Yarra ( Mr, Cairns) said that we should supply
troops to the United Nations and nowhere olseo
Now, Sir, how do you sum it all up? Here is a
party that wants to be put into office, It is dubious and,
indeed, isolationist in its attitude to defence. It has a
dangerous attitude towards a nuclear-free zone. It has an
unreal and evasive attitude on Malaya. It is divided on the
reality of our association with the United States, as
exemplified by the North-West Cape installation, Above all
things it has a dismal position as the humble but obedient
servanG as the lackey, I think that is the Communist
expression of the outside body now famous in history as
the 36o