COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
SPEECH 13Y
Rt. Hon. SIR ROBERT MENZIES,
M. P.,
ON
UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION
STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1963.
[ From the " Parliamentary Debates," 22nd May, 1963.]
Sir ROBERT MENZIES ( Kooyong-
Prime Minister) [ 8.50].-When I remember
that not so long ago the Leader of the
Opposition ( Mr. Calwell), like myself, was
a little out of action, I feel that I ought to
congratulate him on having come back in
such magnificent form. It is a long time
since I heard him to such advantagefor
my side. He really was in very good
form. Mr. Stewart.-Where is the Minister for
External Affairs?
Sir ROBERT MIENZIS-It is all right;
I am still in office.
Mr. Stewart.--Where is he? Put him up!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-41e is still
here, and I am still here; and I am speaking.
You do not mind, do you? Come, Frank,
do you mind?
Mr. Stewart.-No, but I want to hear
Gar. Mr. Ward.-He has gone out to get his
medal. Mr. SPEAKER.--Ordert
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-The Leader
of the Opposition has really waxed very
eloquent to-night. He follows in the footsteps
of one of his senior members who
4751/ 63. explained to us earlier, in -the second-reading
debate, that the House would not be
divided on the-question of the communication
centre and that therefore the motion
for the second reading would go through
without division; but that in committee and
at the third-reading stage there would be
amendments. It is very interesting to note
that, after the next division, the Labour
Party, which wants to be able to go out and
say, We are really supporters of the
establishment of this communication
centre will have voted four times against
it and only once for it.
Another interesting thing is that, although
we were told that the whole of the serried
ranks of -the Labour Party-now so happily,
if precariously, united on this matterwould
be put into the battle, so far the
divisions on this bill have shown a majority
for the Government not of one but of seven
and of five. What has become of the
Opposition? Has the will of the Opposition
weakened? Where are our wandering boys
to-night? Why, with a majority of seven
or five I could live an awful long time in
this office. But, Sir, here it is; for the
fourth time we are going to be asked to
divide. What about? I will answer that
question first technically and then in
substance.
First of all technically, I say to the people
of Australia who no doubt are following
our proceedings with rapt interest-or we
think so-that Standing Order No. 237
deals with the third reading of a bill. After
all, this Parliament is governed by its own
Standing Orders. My distinguished friend
the Leader of the Opposition, made a somewhat
obituary reference to Sir Thomas
Erskine May, the author of May's Parliamentary
Practice who, he said, lived a
long time ago. He suggested that this is an
antiquated idea. I am surprised, because
our Standing Orders were not written by
Sir Thomas Erskine May who
lived a long time ago; they were
written by the Standing Orders
Committee, with the approval of the members
of this House, and they were revised
only the other day. So there is nothing
dead about our book of Standing Orders.
This is the last and final edition of our own
Standing Orders. I remind honorable
members opposite that in Standing Order
No. 237, dealing with the motion " That
the bill be now read a third time" this is
the provision-
The only amendment which may be moved to
the question is by omitting " now" and adding
" this day six months", which, if carried, shall
finally dispose of the Bill
Let us understand this. Supposing -that in
a passion of eloquence or by persuasive
oratory my distinguished opponent had
persuaded a couple of people on this side
of the House to stay away or one person
on this side of the House -to cross the floor
and vote with him, the carrying of this
amendment would have killed the agreement
' and there would be no radio communication
centre established at all.
It ill becomes an opposition to say, Well,
of course, we moved it this way because
we know that it will not be carried ". That
would be humbug, surely. Therefore, we
must be able to test members of the Labour
' Party by saying that they moved this amendment
hoping that for some reason or
another it would be carried. If they care
to deny that, if they care to say publicly that
it was all a bit of flim-flam and that they
-moved the amendment hoping and ' believing
that it would not he carried, then we can
judge them and so can the people of Australia.
But if they are prepared to stand
up and say. We moved this hoping that in some fashion it would be carried then
let them admit publicly that the carrying
of their amendment would kill not only this
bill but the establishment of the communication
station.
, Mr. Reynolds.-What rubbish!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES-It is of no use
saying rubbish I do not need to talk
about rubbish to you.
Mr. Allan Fraser.-We are seeking decent
treatment-Mr. SPEAKER.-Qrde r! The honorable
member for Eden-Monaro will remain silen't.
Mr. Allan Frasr.-I am sorry.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-The honorable
member -for Eden-Monaro always feels
a little troubled when somebody puts the
cold hand of reason on him because he is
not a rational man. I shall repeat my point.
I know that I will not persuade some of my
friends opposite, although I suspect that one
or two of them already agree with me, ' but
I think it ought to be made clear to the
people of Australia somehow or another that
this amendment, if carried, would dispose
of -the bill and that the bill having been
disposed of, this communication centre
would not be established.
Of course, ' there are some ' honorable
members opposite who imaigine that if this
agreement were disposed of we could, in
due course, at leisure and with some comfort-
or they could after another election
-have a pleasant negotiation with the
United States of America. How unrealistic
this is. The fact -is that the United States
has not all that time to ' burn. When it wants
to establish a communication centre. it wants
it soon. When its Congress is asked to vote
for proposals of this kind, the members
Of Congress want to know that ' the proposal
will contribute to the safety of the free
world and' that it will go ahead. Yet this
poor, ' bemused Opposition puts -itself on
record with an amendment which, if carried,
Would mean the destruction of the bill and
the destruction of the agreement. Sir, anybody
with a most elementary knowledge of
the procedures of Parliament could not
doubt for onc moment that that is the
Position.
All I want to say on this point-because
there has been a long debate and there is
not much to be added to it-is that this
amendment is the fourth attempt by the
Opposition to destroy this proposal by
destroying this bill and this agreement. The
only other thing I want to say is this: This
afternoon and, indeed, yesterday a careful
campaign was conducted by the Opposition
to suggest that Labour members alone are
interested in the rights of Australia, the
sovereignty of Australia and our right to
determine our future. I do not want to be
preached to by these people about this matter
because, as a matter of fact, in the last war
it was I who, as the head of the then govearnment,
stipulated that the Second Australian
Imperial Force which was going to the
Middle East was not to be submerged in
other formations; that it was to be under
Australian command; and that it was to be
in contact with the Australian Government
whenever it wanted to be. This is an old
practice. Nobody can claim a monopoly in
this. It was established twenty years before
I and those who sat in government witb
me re-established it at that time.
But, Sir, this is a case in which the Labour
Party, however it may cloak its intention,
wants to establish a proposition in the name
of our own sovereignty that this signalling
station is not to be used by the United
States, except with the express approval of
the Australian Government under circumstances
in which the United States is at war.
That is what the Opposition members are
saying. Mr. Cahvlwell.-No, they are not.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.--Of course,
they are. The Leader of the Opposition is
rather handicapped in debating this. He
began his speech in the second-reading
debate by saying, in effect, that there was
joint control. It now turns out that he
agrees with us that there is no joint control.
There is a power to consult. Therefore, he
has gone to all this trouble and called all
these divisions to try to produce the joint
control which a few days ago he said already
existed. We must be alive to the circumstances of
the times. Australia is not a nuclear power.
The United States is the greatest of the
nuclear powers, much to our comfort. The existence of a nuclear deterrent in the
United States and in Great Britainalthough
at present to a much smaller
extent there-is the condition by which we
live. I repeat that. The problem that has
to be considered is whether we want to
have a deterrent that does not deter,
whether we want to have a deterrent that
cannot be used at the right time and in the
right place. Picture the position to the
north and west of Australia. Go west into
the Indian Ocean, south of Communist
China and south of Communist Russia. The
United States is the great power that has
the deterrent weapon in the air, from submarines
and otherwise. I put this to everybody
as a matter of plain common sense.
Suppose the Communists decided that they
would attack. Nobody would be so silly
as to think they would send a courteous
letter giving notice. When the Communists
think that the time has come, they will act,
and from that moment it will be a matter
of minutes before the instruments of detection
ascertain what they are doing and
where their missiles are going. In
those circumstances, literally with ballistic
missiles in the air, we are told that there
must be political consultation before the
United States can retaliate from the Indian
Ocean in order to render unprofitable the
attack by the Communist powers.
Sir, this is bedlamite nonsense. Why talk
about a lot of theoretical matters when the
fact is that it will be a matter of mere
minutes before, the word having come
through, the President of the United States
will have to send a message to his own
naval forces deployed in this part of the
world, " You are to strike". We are told
by the Labour Party that in those circumstances
we must stipulate that before the
United States authorities can send a message
from our soil which might impair our
neutrality they must have a political discussion
with us. If I were running one of
these great Communist countries, I could
wish for nothing better than to see the most
powerful enemy of communism hamstrung
by having to engage in consultations of this
kind before the return blow could come.
We do not want the blow or the return
blow. No honorable member of this House
has any monopoly of humanity. We are
men with families and we are men concerned
with the future of our country. Of
course we do not want to have this
diabolical disaster come on the world. But
the best way of guaranteeing that it will
come is to impair the efficacy of the counterstroke
after the stroke comes. In other
words, the best way to destroy our future
is to put an impediment in the way of the
great Western nuclear power-the great
home of freedom for this purpose and the
great protector of so many free nations in
the world-and prevent it from being able
to make its retaliation both certain and
swift. A retaliation that is not certain and
swift is not a retaliation at all.
I beg honorable members opposite to
come up to date on this matter. We are living in a world in which a war, if it came,
would not leave a matter of months to do
things and to prepare as in the past. If a
war came, and it was a war on the global
scale, it would have reached its peak in a
day or two days. The first massive blows
would have been delivered in minutes, not
days. Sir, I am an Australian and I am
proud of my country. I would not willingly
abandon any of the rights of my country.
I am a great believer in them. But, in the
name of a theoretical protection of
Australia's rights, to abandon Australia's
real interests, to leave this country defenceless
in a war of this kind and to leave
Australia, as I said earlier, as the prize of
victory is something that I will not accept,
that my colleagues will not accept and that
the people of Australia will not accept.
BY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMdMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTEB, CANBERRA.