COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
SPEECH BY
Rt. Hon. SIR ROBERT MENZIES,
M. P.,
ON
PARLIAMENTARY ARRANGEMENTS.
[ From the " Parliamentary Debates," 15th October, 1963.]
Sir ROBERT MENZIES ( Kooyong-
Prime Minister)-by leave-Sir, at the last
general election in December, 1961, the
M'Government's majority was reduced to
which meant one after the election
of a Speaker. It is therefore not surprising
that the Government has, throughout
the life of the Parliament, been under
repeated pressure by the Opposition to go
to an early election. Indeed, Sir, when
the new Parliament met, a no-confidence
motion was submitted by the Opposition on
27th February, 1962, the proceedings
taking the form of a no-confidence amendment
to the motion for the adoption of the
Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's
peech. This amendment was defeated by
votes to 59.
Mr. Bryant.-Pretty close!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Yes, indeed.
j) hat is the point. I am glad you follow
me. On 14th August, 1962, in the Budget
10389/ 63. debate, the Opposition moved a motion of
censure in the normal way by moving,
" That the first item be reduced by œ 1
Had this motion been carried, the Government,
would, of course, have been defeated.
The motion was defeated by 58 votes to 56,
there being at that time a vacancy in the
Opposition-held seat of Batman. On 2nd
April, 1963-that is, this year-the Opposition
moved, " That this Government no
longer possesses the confidence of this
House".... Opposition Members.-Hear, hear!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I am
delighted to hear it. This motion was
defeated by 59 votes to 58.
Mr. Armitage.-How many do you want
to win by?
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-After the
election, Sir, I propose to win by eleven or
thirteen votes. I am indebted to my friend.
That was a very good question.
Now, to come back to the facts. The
motion was defeated by 59 votes to 58.
There was a vacancy in the Opposition-held
seat of Grey, but a Government member
was absent, unpaired, from the division.
On 18th April, 1963, there was yet another
censure motion, which was defeated by 57
votes to 55. On 20th August, 1963-again
this year-the Opposition moved an amendment
to the motion for the second reading
of the Appropriation Bill. The amendment
concluded with the words-and these are
significant words-" the House is of the
opinion-Mr. Calrns.-Are we to have an election
or not?
Sir ROBERT MENZIFS.-Restrain your
fears. The amendment concluded with the
words, the House is of the opinion that the
Government no longer possesses its confidence
or the confidence of the nation.
Opposition Members.-Hear, hear!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-It is wonderful
how helpful they are on all great occasions!
This amendment was defeated by
59 votes to 57, there being a vacancy in
East Sydney, an Opposition-held seat.
It will thus be seen that already, in somewhat
under two years, the existence of the
Government has been challenged no fewer
that five times, three times with an increasing
note of urgency in the last six months.
Mr. O'Brien.-Shocking!
Sir ROBERT MIENZIES.-No; it is wonderful.
You are easily shocked. ' You will
be even more shocked in a month' s time.
Sir, in each case it must be reasonably
assumed that the Opposition was
serious in its intentions, and that it
would have welcomed success. Any other
assumption would be unwarranted and
offensive. Any such success would have
meant the defeat of the Government and,
under established constitutional practice, an
election. Mr. Webb.-What is wrong with that?
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Would you
mind listening a little? It will be one of the few times when you will have to listen to
me. Mr. Webb.-If you are here.
Sir ROBERT MENZ~ IES.--Quite right.
You can always listen to me if I am here,
but not if you are not here. I repeat that
in each case it must be reasonably assumed
-and I gather that this is agreed-that
the Opposition was serious in its intentions,
and it would have welcomed success. Any
other assumption would be unwarranted
and offensive. Any such success would
have meant the defeat of the Government
and, under established constitutional
practice, an election.
The Opposition knows, as I do, that in
the present state of the House of Reprcsentatives,
the crossing of the floor by one
member sitting on the Government side
would bring about the defeat of the Government,
as indeed would the inadvertent or
voluntary abstention of two Government
supporters from a division. These are
elementary mathematics. In short, the
Opposition has five times sought to force
an election which would be one for the
House of Representatives alone.
Mr. Cross.-That is right.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-You do not
disagree with that, do you?
Mr. Cross.-Not at all.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Of course not!
I have it on record now. Five tim es th'
Opposition tried to force an election. Do
not abandon your leader too quickly, my
dear boy. I emphasize this point because I
observe that it is now being said by the
Leader of the Opposition ( Mr. Calwell) that
an election for the House of Representatives
alone, that is, before July, 1964, would be
wasteful and improper.
Mr. Calwel.-Hear, hear!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-He says,
" Hear, hear! and the honorable member
for Brisbane ( Mr. Cross) does not agre.
with him! Harmony breaks out on the'
Opposition benches! This is indeed a
curious argument for the Leader of the
Opposition to employ, having regard to the
events that I have recited. Are we to
understand that all of his no-confidenc,
motions were deliberately designed to fail?
I would be reluctant to make any such
charge of political insincerity against an
opponent whose constant devotion to his
party I freely recognise. I add to this short
history of events that, as honorable memmers
have observed, in the last no-confidence
amendment, less than eight weeks ago, the
special inclusion of the words, " or the
confidence of the nation"' was a direct
demand to test the opinion of the nation
by a House of Representatives election.
Opposition Members.-Hear, hear!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Thank you
very much. I subnmit that these facts
conclusively establish that there can be no
legitimate objection on the part of members
of the Opposition to a dissolution of the
House of Representatives, a dissolution
which they have done their best to secure
on five critical occasions.
Mr. Speaker, I will now proceed to set
out some additional reasons for recommending
that, without an actual defeat of
the Government, there should be a dissolution
of the present precariously balanced
House, and a-new election. There have
been times in history when peace seemed
secure and when there were no international
roblems of moment-
Mr. SPEAKER ( Hon. Sir John McLeay).
-Order! Honorable members will refrain
from interjecting.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I am sorry,
ir, but I must instruct honorable members
) apposite. I remind them that there have
been times in history-does anybody deny
it?-when peace seemed secure; when there
were no international problems of moment;
when, in any event, there were no material
differences between the political parties on
foreign affairs; when there was stability of
government; and when circumstances were
conducive to long-range policies. The present
position of Australia is quite different.
Australia is a Commonwealth country, with
a significant voice in Commonwealth affairs.
has, apart from its vital association with
Jreat Britain, the United States of America,
f-rance, Pakistan, New Zealand, the Philippines
and Thailand, in the South-East Asia
Treaty Organization, an alliance with the
United States and New Zealand in Anzus.
,-Pursuant to these arrangements my Gornment
has, during the current Parliament,
first made an agreement with the United States for the establishment by it, on Australian
territory in the north-west of Western
Australia, of a naval radio signalling station,
the value and significance of which would,
of course, be of the greatest urgency and
moment in the event of a war in which the
United States was engaged. Indeed, without
its prompt and full use, the operations
of the United States naval forces of all kinds
wouild be grievously handicapped. My Government
believes that in any foreseeable
future any such war must be one of defence
against Communist aggression and that any
such aggression would put the security of
Australia at risk. In short, in such events
the United States forces would be defending
Australia.
In our contract with the United States in
respect of this radio installation, therefore,
my Government, while providing for general
consultation and access by Australian naval
forces to the signalling facilities, has not
required or obtained a joint control of the
station. Such joint control would, of
course, enable an Australian government
to veto the American use of the station
in peace or in war, or require an Australian
censorship of the messages transmitted. The
Opposition in Parliament has, I believe,
made it clear that should it come into office
it will re-negotiate the treaty and will insist
upon joint control; that is, upon a veto by
either party on the activities of the other.
Sir, the station is about to be constructed
at the cost of many millions of pounds by
the United States. It is, in my submission,
important that the inter-party problem in
Australia be resolved. In these international
engagements, certainly it is essential to
security. Secondly, we have also made a clear but
unilateral declaration of our attitude to the
new state of Malaysia. This was made by
me on behalf of the Government on
September, 1963-only the other day, in a
sense-in the following terms:-
But for the benefit of all concerned, honorable
members would not wish me to create or permit
any ambiguity-
Mr. Uren.--Are you happy, Jack? You
do not look at all happy, Jack.
Mr. SPEAKER.--Orderl The honorable
member for Reid will restrain
himself. Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Of course he
does not like Malaysia.
Mr. SPEAKER.-Orderl Honorable
members will refrain from interjecting.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I do not
mind, Sir. I have plenty of time.
Mr. Cross.-Time is running out.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Yes, it is
running out for you, but not for me. That
is why I say I have plenty of time, and
so I repeat what honorable members opposite
appear to dislike-the statement I
made on behalf of this country in this
House. I begin my quotation again-
But for the benefit of all concerned, honorable
members would not wish me to create or permit
any ambiguity about Australia's position in relation
to Malaysia. I therefore, after close
deliberation by the Cabinet, and on its behalf,
inform the House that we are resolved, and have
so informed the Government of Malaysia, and the
Governments of the United Kingdom and New
Zealand and others concerned, that if, in the
circumstances that now exist, and which may continue
for a long time, there occurs, in relation to
Malaysia or any of its constituent States, armed
invasion or subversive activity-supported or
directed or inspired from outside Malaysia-we
shall to the best of our powers and by such
means as shall be agreed upon with the Government
of Malaysia, add our military assistance to
the efforts of Malaysia and the United Kingdom
in the defence of Malaysia's territorial integrity
and political independence.
These are words with which all honorable
members are familiar. Sir, this
declaration has attracted wide internatioiial
attention, and is clearly of crucial importance
in Australian foreign and defence
policy. It is most important that the
other nations concerned should know
whether it carries the clear backing of the
Australian people. The Opposition, speaking
through its leader on the same day
in the House of Representatives, has
announced a view which, while listening
to it, I thought reasonably helpful. But
a close study of the text of the speech
makes it clear that the Opposition's position
differs very materially from that of
the Government. It is true that the
Leader of the Opposition said-
The Labour Party supports the concept of
Malaysia and welcomes its creation. We believe
that this experiment in nationhood should be
given its chance, free from attack or interference
from other nations, to prove itself. But, Sir, he went on to say that the continued
presence of Australian troops in
Malaysia-Shall be covered by a treaty clear, open, and
if possible, mutual, which gives Australia an
effective voice in the decision of the treaty
powers. Mr. Don Cameron.-Is there anything
wrong with that?
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-If you have
patience you will hear -what I have to say
about it. Whatever this may turn out to
mean, since any treaty involves mutuality,
it does not mean support for the declaration
made on behalf of the Government
by me as Prime Minister. I say this for
two reasons, which I will state as succinctly
as possible.
In the first place, Malaya-and this I
am afraid has been overlooked-was not,
and Malaysia is not, an alined country.
It is a non-alined country or, in the old
vocabulary a neutral country, and because
of that it is not a party to Seato. It has
been, and is, a matter of high policy for
Malaya and Malaysia to be regarded as a
nation jealous of its independence but not
as one having, in peace-time at any rate,
-mutual contractual military obligation,
with any other country. In this respect. j
Mr. Speaker, it resembles India. True,
Great Britain has a defence arrangement
with Malaysia. But this arises from the
fact that Great Britain was the colonial"
power, and that, in granting independenr 3
under a carefully evolved constitution,
found it desirable to give effective assurances
to the new nation that its complete
independence would be protected. In short.
the British agreement does not run counter
to Malaysian non-alinement, but, in effect,
helps in a practical way to preserve
Malaysian independence.
Australia, not having been the colonial
power, stands in a different position. If
what the Opposition wants is, as I understand
it, that there should be a mutual
-treaty of defence between Australia aj
Malaysia under which Malaysia becomes oui
ally for military purposes in advance of any
armed attack upon co-operating Australian
forces, then the answer is that such a treaty
would, in the absence of a revolutionar'.-
change in Malaysian policy, be impossible,
achievement.
. Again, what Australia does under the
Government's declaration is to support
Great Britain in the defence of Malaysia's
"-territorial integrity and political independence
This being so, we believe that disadvantage
would accrue to Australia if we
conditioned our help upon the securing of a
detailed treaty. , For the reasons I have
indicated, any such treaty could not reasonably
be expected to express any advance
iliitary obligations by Malaysia to us. This
being so-this is the vital question-is it
better for Australia to have a simple but
clear declaration of * intention on our part
which, in its very nature, preserves our own
judgment as to the nature, extent and disposition
of Australian forces to be deployed,
or for us deliberately to enmesh ourselves in
a mass of written detailed rules and regulations
which would limit our own freedom of
action while conferring upon us no actual
rights to secure reciprocal military obligations
on the part of Malaysia? In short,
Sir, the Government believes that the Opposition's
proposal is impracticable and would
be damaging to the complete authority of
the Government of Australia over its forces
in the event of an attack upon Malaysian
-security or political independence.
The problems which exist in our near
neighbourhood are too critical to admit of
uncertainty in our national policy. To deal
with -them, there should be a government
with an effective mandate and authority;
and the sooner there is one, the better for
all concerned.
There is another great issue of international
policy which needs to be resolved.
I speak about -this with some delicacy. It is
the declared policy of the Australian Labour
Party, I understand-I have not heard the
outside voices yet-that Australia should
negotiate for and Participate in a nuclearfree
zone south of the equator, with an
agreed prohibition of the accumulation or
deployment of nuclear weapons in that area.
If this came off, as honorable members no
Sdoubt hope it will, with Australia as a party,
our allies under Seato and Anzus could not,
except against the will of Australia, use
nuclear weapons in the defence of this
region, including Australia, even though
powers north of the equator created and
sed them.
Mr. Cross.-Nonsensel Sir ROBERT MENZ[ ES.-You must
explain it to me. The Government, though
it has, in line with -the unanimous opinions
of the Prime Ministers in conference in
London, refrained from establishing nuclear
military power -itself, would regard the
Opposition's policy, if it succeeded, as
suicidal-Mr. Pollard.-Bomb-happy Bob!
Sir ROBERT MENZTOES.-Now, Reggie,
behave yourself! The Government would
regard the Opposition's policy, if it succeeded,
as suicidal, since it would operate
to handicap our defending allies who possess
nuclear weapons while leaving Communist
nuclear powers, who are north of -the
equator, completely free to deploy and use
nuclear weapons'wherever -they chose. It
is time for this issue to be resolved by the
people. Opposition Members.--Hear, hear!
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I am delighted
to ' find such unanimity about -an election.
To sum up, I would say this: Since the
1961 election, the Government has, after the
election of -a Speaker, and given completely
normal circumstances, a majority of only
one in a House of 122 voting members. It
will, I am sure, be understood that in the
existing circumstances a proportion of the
time of myself and other Ministers has to be
devoted to what I may call the almost daily
problem of political survival, with all the
cumulative strains involved.
Mr. Pollard.-What are you here for.
anyhow? SIr ROBERT MENZIES.-I am here,
apparently, to listen to you. I'have listened
to you from that seat for a long time, and
I hope to -listen to you for a long time
further. However, since you are apparently
unaware of what is involved in office, I will
repeat what I have said. I do not mind. It
will, I am sure, be understood that in the
existing circumstances a proportion of the
time of myself and other Ministers has to be
devoted to what I may call ' the almost daily
problem of political survival, with all the
cumulative strains involved-and one of the
strains is listening to the honorable member
for Newcastle, who is interjecting. And,
Mr. Speaker, -this occurs in a period of Australian
history in which an Australian
government, whatever side it comes from
should be able to devote the whole of its
energies to the international, defence,
economic and developmental problems of
the nation. These are growing and frequently
pressing problems of magnitude and
complexity. Their solution calls for close
and concentrated attention, undistracted by
the parliamentary crises-
Mr. Jones.-Why don't you-
Mr. SPEAKER-Order! The ' honorable
member for Newcastle Will remain silent.
Sir ROBERT MENZIIES.-With great
respect, Mr. Speaker, he Came here only to
make a noise and he will never make a noise
except from the back bench, on whichever
side ' he is.
Their solution calls for close and concentrated
attention, undistracted by the parliamentary
crises which are inherent in an
almost equally divided House. In particular,
Australa is increasingly significant in
and affected by the political and economic
activities and arrangements of other nations.
It therefore needs a government that can
speak and act authoritatively on behalf of
Australia. The nation is entitled to this, and
to choose uinambiguously who shall speak
for it. I repeat that, for the Teasons I stated earlier, the Opposition can-not legitimately
object to an election which it has
repeatedly done its best to secure.
I shall -mention times, because there has
been some very -funny gossip, stated as -fact,
in certain organs of opinion. I therefore
yesterday morning advised His Excellency
the Governor-General -that the House of
Representatives should -be dissolved at the
close of the current business on or about
31st October, and that an election should
be held on 30th November.
Opposition Members.-Hoorayl
Sir ROBERT MIENZIIES.-I share your
joy. I had a personal interview with His
Excellency yesterday afternoon. I am sorry
to disappoint the prophets. His Excellency
has to-day accepted this advice in writing on
the usual condition, of course, that before
dissolution the Parliament should have made
the necessary financial provisions for the
services of the country. Well, all honorable
members understand that. This means
that the debates on the Appropriation Bills
must be completed before dissolution.
There are, of course, Mr. Speaker, other
important measures, some of them arising
out of the Budget, which will have to be
disposed of. I expect, particularly in the. 1
light of my announcement to-night, that all
the necessary business will be completed
by or before the end of this month.
TIY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA.