SPEEQO by the
RT. HON. R. G. MENZIES, M. P.
on
THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE
delivered in the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on
TUESDAY, 25th October, 1955.
itOYAL COMMISSION ON ESPIONAGE
When a Royal Commission sits for months to investigate
matters of national security, it is not common to have the tabling
of the report followed by the making of charges relating to the very
matters enquired into. But on this occasion, Dr. Evatt has indulged
himself in the luxury of once more be ' coming the advocate in'this House
of causes of which he was the professional-advocate before the-Royal
Commission; professionally but unsuccessfully. In-short, he is asking
this Parliament, which has not heard the witnesses, to-sit-as-a Court
of appeal from three judges who heard every word of the evidence, who
read every word of all the doctv-nts, who-listened to all the cross
examination and who, for some weeks, not two hours,. listened to
Dr. Evatt himself. This is a state of affairs so astonishing-that,
if it were not for the office held by Dr. Evatt and his leadership-in
this Parliament of a great Party, I would invite the House-. and the
people to treat the whole of his submissions-as being either frivolous
or offensive. After all,-the whole purpose of appointing a Royal
Commission ( and this one was appointed by the unanimous vote of this
Parliament, and with terms of reference unanimously-agreed upon by
this Parliament) is to transfer the business of investigation-from
Parliament, which is not equipped for such matters, to a trained body
of investigators whose-findings will carry weight with both Parliament
and people. But Dr. Evatt is nothing if not persistent. Before he ever
appeared professionally before the Royal Commission, he had-clearly
made-up his mind to attack it, to lower its reputation in the public
mind and, if possible, to destroy its findings in advance. These
tactics are not unknown in the world, though they are not normal in
democratic countries. -He went through the motions of-appearing before
the Commission-as a lawyer. In reality, as the judges subsequently
had to point out to him. he-seemed to be appearing-for himself, and to
find it impossible to distinguish between his somewhat nominal-functions
as Counsel for a couple of members of his-staff, and his real function
as the political exponent of points of view which,. before the Royal
Commission, made him the instant ally of-Lockwood and Hill and all-the
other Communists involved in the enquiry. He has now thought fit, no
doubt with the approval of those who-sit-behind him, to develop a
series of charges, all of which he made directly or indirectly before
the Royal Commission, and on all of which the Commission has. found
against-him. I would exceed the boundaries of time and trench upon
eternity if I were to endeavour to follow point by point the erratic
course of his arguments. Belicving as I do that the patience of
Honourable Members is already sufficiently strained, I will content
myself by dealing with what I might loosely describe as the substa-nce
of his main charges.
I will summarise them.
Against the Judges he makes the charge that they were
incompetent, that they-acted without proper evidence, that they
culpably failed to discover a great conspiracy, : and that they have
made a false report.
Against the which I will refer to as the Security
Service the Service set up by the late Mr. Chifley in 1949 after
there had been serious leakages from the External Affairs Department
between 1945 and 194p8-Dr. Evatt unleashes a volume of hatred
which I have not seen surpassed. He concentrates his venom upon
Brigadier Spry, the head of that Service but, through him, he-charges
the Service with being corrupt, oppressive, conspiratorial and
actuated by Party political motives. He even goes so far as to say
that for people like Brigadier Spry, peace is a dangerous word; a
strange allegation to be made against a man who has been decorated
in the service of his country, and who was wounded in the service of
his country on the Kokoda Trail.
Against Mr. Victor Windeyer. who appeared to assist
the Royal Commission, he makes tihe charge ( which would be damaging if
it came from any other quart.>) that he lent himself to a conspiracy
with me and with others, designed tc inflict damage upon the Labour
Party when an election was penxding, and that he aid this by-accepting
instructions from me, and even the phraseology which I : am alleged to
have submitted to him.
Against myself as Prime Minister of the country, he makes
a bewildering variety of charges. First: he says-that I ' saved up'
the Petrov matter for election purposes until April, 1954 though, as
he alleges, I knew-all about it as far back as 1953. His witness on
this matter is a book published in the name of one, Bialoguski;
Bialoguski being, on his own view, a man of no credit except when
he speaks against me. Second, he says that I suppressed public
knowledge of the payment of œ 5,000 to Petrov until after polling day.
Third, he says that I encouraged or directed Mr. Windeyer to exaggerate
and deceive in his opening address and, if I understand his -speech,
that I drafted some of Mr. Windeyer's opening speech. Fourth, he says
that I grossly betrayed my trust by giving wide publicity to
allegations without first finding evidence in support of them and fifth
he says, with a singular-and imaginative effort, that I conspired
against Madame Oilier. ' spirited' her out of the country, and had her
held incommunicado so that the in-estigation of episodes concerning her
could be unfairly conducted. There may be other charges against me,
the chief of which is that I am Prime Minister, but I have not been
able either to isolate or define them
On the other side, Dr. Evatt has devoted no small amount
of the two hours which the House granted him to defending certain
people. Who are they?
First he has defended Dr. Burton, whose published political
views cannot sensibly be regarded-as-finding favour, except with the
Communists. Why he thought it necessary to defend Dr. Burton in a
discussion on the Royal Commission-report I do not understand, for
the-fact is that these incompetent and gullible Royal Commissioners
( as I understand him to say) made no finding adverse to Dr. Burton
at all. Second, he has gone to some pains to defend Mr. Sharkey,
the leading Australian Communist, against the well-founded charge-that
he received from Moscow 25,000-dollars as some recompense for the
costs incurred in his campaign, conducted in the closest collaboration
with Dr. Evatt, against the Communist Party Dissolution Act.
Third, he has come to the rescue of Mr. Clayton, found by
the-Royal Commission', on the clearest possible evidence, to be the
chief member of the Communist spy ring in Australia.
Confronted by a report which, in the view of 95% of the
Australian people, is a careful but magnificent tribute to Australian
judicial procedures, he has-sought to destroy the-authenticity of the
Moscow papers found by the Judges, after many months of investigation,
to be completely authentic, by calling-as his somewhat-remote witness,
Mr. Molotov who, we are told,-says that the papers are not genuine,
-and that the whole matter represented an attempt to create bad blood
between this country and the Soviet Union. In brief, Dr. Evatt would
have us believe that months of investigation on oath, scores of
thousands of questions and: answers, and the meticulous examination of
documents should-all be brushed aside because the nation found guilty of
espionage-says ' We are not guilty'.
What I have already said-will, without any verbal decorations,
satisfy all sane and sensible people that Dr. Evatt, suffering from
persecution delusions, is-introducing us into a world of-sheer fantasy.
But it is necessary I think, if only for the historical record, that
I should say more about matters which could otherwise quite adequately
be dismissed by the hearty laughter of a nation which possesses both
good sense and humour. I therefore propose to remind the House and
the pecple of some of the facts which: relate to those who-stand
indicted by Dr: Evatt. This I think necessary because: a very
natural query in the minds of any of us when people are charged with
se:-ous offences is ' What kind of people are these?' I start with
the Judges themselves.
Mr. Justice Owen, who derives from one of the most: celebrated
judicial families in New South Wales, was, as a private soldier, a
member of the A. I. F. from 1915 to 1919. He subsequently-went-to the
Bar. He was appointed a Supreme Court Judge in 1937. His capacity
and integrity are household words with every lawyer in New South Wales
except, apparently, Dr. Evatt, The odd thing is that he was profoundly
trusted both by Mr, Curtin and Chifley. It was on their appointment
that he was Chairman of che Central Wool Committee during the War
from 1942 to 1945. In 1945 Mr. Chifley sent him to London on a most
important mission regarding surplus wool disposals. To challenge him
as Dr. Evatt has, in his desperation, challenged him in this case, is
to challenge a man who represents in his own person the highest
qualities of mind and character, and the finest judicial traditions in
this country. But, so that a couple of Communist agents can be brought
off, and Mr. Molotov may be justified, Dr. Evatt is prepared to impeach
Mr. Justice Owen's competence, judicial perception : and objective
honesty. The second Judge wvi: Mr, Justice Philp, : a member of the Supreme
Court Bench of Queensland since 1939. Himself a member of the'First
and with a grievous family loss in this last war, . this learned
Judge has waited all. these years to be attacked-in the same-way,-and
in the same contemptible interests.. His character and work-need no
eulogy of mine, for his professional and personal standing are alike
beyond criticism. The third Judge,-Mr. Justice Liger. twood, also a member of
the A. I. F. in the first world war, has been a Justice of the Supreme
Court of South Australia-since 1945. I had thought that this-lofty
and splendid man might have escaped the torrent of abuse. How Dr. Evatt
attacks either his competence or his-judicial attributes, I -do not-know;
for it was Dr. Evatt himself who appointed him as a single Royal
Commissioner to investigate charges made against, among others, Mr. Ward.
His findings exonerated Mr. Ward, At that time I heard no: complaint
by Dr. Evatt against Mr. Justice Ligertwood. But, today, when he-isa
party to a unanimous report on the Petrov matters, he is exposed to
condemnation which is not based upon reason, but upon a sheer passion
of hatred against people who have made findings against the-Communists.
And then there is Mr. Windeyer Mr, Victor Windeyer, Q. C.
who appeared to assist the Royal Commission and who-was, quite
properly, so-convinced that he must be free of-any influence that,
from first to last with the exceptions that I will refer to, said.
he did not wish to be ' instructed' by the Commonwealth Law Department
as Counsel are normally instructed by solicitors. Who is
Mr. Windeyer? He is a lawyer, a former distinguished-lecturer in
law, and-a great soldier. A Major General, a military the
holder of a D. S. O. and Bar, and three times mentioned in despatches;
a veteran of Tobruk, of Alamein, of the capture of Finachhafen; for
some years from 1950 the Citizen Forces member of the Military Board.
Any New South Wales lawyer must know that the name of Windeyer, like
the name of Owen, represents all that-is-best in New South Wales-legal
tradition. So far I have mentioned the four lawyers who have been
accused, but I must-say somethingabout-the head of the Security Service,
-Brigadier Charles Spry, -against whom-a most venomous attack has-been
made, an attack, I do-not doubt, calculated-in the interes. ts of the
Communists to weaken the authority of the Security Service, to discourage
good men from going-into it to make its officers fearful of
political victimisation, and, therefore, to give-aid and-comfort to our
-enemies. Charles Spry is a graduate of Duntroon and of the Staff
College in the United Kingdom. He saw-active service in India in 1936.
He-was-with-the Seventh-Australian Division in the Owen Stanleys and on
the Kokoda Trail. He was wounded there. He was decorated withthe
He was Director of Military Intelligence in Australia from 1946
to 1950,-a period, for the bulk of which Dr. Evatt, as Attorney General
and-Minister for External Affairs, had the-benefit of his notable
: services. -And finally, of course, there-is myself. I-am not here-to
defend myself against fantastic charges, though I will say-a few
temperate words about them before I-finish. But I must permit myself
to say that I have, for over-a quarter of-a : century, served the Australian
people in-the very heat of political-controversy, that-for almost-fifteen
years those who-are-closest to me have unanimously maintained me as their
-leader, -and that I am, therefore, not-entirely. unknown, either in
-character or-act,-to the-Australian people. Yet, according-to -Dr. Evatt,
last year or the year before, made myself a party to a: swindle and was
-able to secure the-collaboration of those distinguished men-whom I have
-named-in order to-make that swindle-effective.
Having-said so: much about the persons in the drama, I will now
turn first to a consideration of-what-the Royal -Commission-has-found,
and-second to a-consideration of the Evatt/ Molotov charges.
First, the. Royal Commission found -that -the -Petrovs -left
Sthe Russian service -and -sought asylum-in-this country of -their own
choice,. and without pressure. -Second, it found that : the-Petrovs
, are witnesses of truth, with accuracy of a high order. . It-arrived
; at-this conclusion after-Petrov had been-in the witness -box on thirty-
-seven days-for-approximately seventyfour -hours-; in all somewhat longer,
it will be agreed, than-Mr. Molotov) and Mrls. Petrov on-twentyone-days
. for approximately thirty hourssin-all. Third, ? it has found-that-during
-the period-which has-elapsedsince -their-defection -they have been
questioned on behalf of-theicounterespionageiservice of other countries
with results-which have-been of-the-greatest-value to-those: countries.
-This finding-is confirmed -by -subsequent experiences to-which IawilI
refer later on. Fourth, the Royal-Commission-found that the Petrov
papers were genuine. Dr.-Evatt has adduced here, . ashe-was-indeed
ibusy-in adducing-for : a long-time before-the Royal Commission-in-his other
capacity, arguments to show-that-the papers-were forgeries. I-was-not-required-
to listen to his-arguments before the-Judges, but-I heard-his -arguments
-here. All. I-need say is -that-his attempt,-to overthrow-months of
-investigation both -internal and-external -by-the Judges -has been pathetic
iahd ineffective. Fifth, -the Commission-has-found that-' for-many years,
the Government of-the UiS. SSR. had-been using-its Embassy-at-Canberra-as
a: cloak-under which-to-control -and operate -espionage-organisations -in
-Australia.' -Sixth, -it found-that the only -Australians-who-knowingly--assisted-
this-espionage-were Communists. -Seventh, -itfound that-without Communism,
-Soviet espionage-could have no hope of-success in-Australia-and-that -the
. existence-here of Communists-was thefundamental-cause of the-formation of
our Security Service-by Mr. Chifley, and necessitates-its retention as bei,.
-essential -to-the -security-and-defence of-Australia.
-The -Conwiission -made -some particular -findings-abouti individuals,
though -it-found-that -the -evidence ; stopped-short of-justifying-a prosecution
under the-existing-Australian-law.
-It-also-made-some observations-about the-case of one, -Madame
Ollier, -as-supporting-its -finding-that the Soviet Embassy-was-engaged-in
espionage. It-is only-in-this -context that-the -case -of Madame-Ollier
. achieves any -importance -but,-having -regard -to the -fact that -Dr. Evat's
delusions of-grandeur have -led,-him-to take the -unprecedented -step of offering
his views by correspondence to-the French-Court-which-tried Madame
Ollier, I will-say a few words about that matter before -Iconclude.
Dr. Evatt's* ' case -against the Commissioners and.-their Report
is completely disposed of by the Report itself. His ' case': against-me
is also, -in one respect, -the case against-Mr. -Windeyer. Dr. Evatt said
that the opening by Mr. Wingdyer was melodramatic ' Never was -there
-such-a sensational opening'. lam a little handicapped on this point
because-I was, -at the time, in Perth and certainly found-nothing exciting
in the press reports. But Dr. Evatt has, in his speech, not only
criticized Mr. Windeyer's language -but has pointedly suggested that I
was its draftsman Indeed, he said that I ' must take personal responsibility
for all the exaggeration and deception-.,
The facts are that Mr. Windeyer made an opening characterized
by great moderation and restraint. He made no reference that might
damage one political-side or the other except that he mentioned that
there were names of Members of Parliament on both sides included in the
documents. I am indeed reluctant to invoke the observations of Counsel
on a matter of this kind but I think that I should tell the House since
these charges have been-made the relevant, substance of-a recent
communication from Mr. Windey'r in London. I had written to him thanking
him for his work on the Council of the Australian National Universityand
had expressed my regret that he had felt unable to continue: it. He replied
appropriately. He then, quite voluntarily, went on to give me his recollection
of the one meeting I had with him, which was before the enquiry
began, on the Saturday or Sunday in Sydney, the others present being the
Solicitor General, Professor Bailey, Mr. A. S. Brown, the Secretary to the
Prime Minister's Department and Mr. Spry. He confirms that I gave no
directions except on four points, but said that the conduct of the enquiry
should be left to the Commissioners and Counsel. Four matters were-then
discussed. They were:-
Whether there should be a press interview of the Petrovs.
I decided that there should not.
The references in the documents to Madame Ollier, under
the name ' Olga'. I said that the French Ambassador
should be informed through the proper channels that her
name was mentioned.
The payment to Petrov of œ 5,000. I did not know of this
before. Mr. Windeyer said that to him the amount seemed
small in the circumstances. I said that it was: a-matter
to be proved and proved publicly, and that this-should: be
done later in its proper setting when Pe, trov was examined.
The fourth matter was about an interpreter. Having heard
of Mr. Birse's qualifications and his complete independence,
I directed that a signal be sent to Winston Churchill
asking whether Birse could come. I further said that I
felt that, in the long run, it was probably advisable to
take evidence in public rather than in private: as had been
done in Canada, but that no -individual's name should: be
mentioned by Mr. Windeyer in opening the matter. I
expressed the view with which Counsel agreed that it would
not be proper to mention any names until after the Election.
This common recollection of Mr. Windeyer and myself is
of course, a complete refutation of-a suggestion of political malpractice.
To have opened the œ 5,000 payment except in-direct
association with the surrounding circumstances would have been most
misleading, and would have invited gross misrepresentation. But, in
any event, the political allegation is manifestly absurd. Dr. Evatt's
theory is that the whole of this matter from beginning to end was
cooked up to defeat him at an election. Apropos of this I well
remember the cynical but wise remark of a former Supreme Court Judge
in my own State who-said-to a young Advocate, ' You may think that it
is permissible to regard your opponent as a: crook; -but-it-is an
elementary blunder to treat him as a fool'. Now Dr. Evatt says,
putting it in homely terms, that in these matters I was a: crook! -But
why-should he also charge me with being: a fool? After all, every
Honorable Member will realize that when I made my announcement to the
House about Petrov and a Royal Commission I would have been in the
ordinary course well entitled to quote a specimen of the documents Petrov
had brought with him. If I-had done this the names of O'Sullivan,
-Grundeman, and others, directly or indirectly associated with Dr. Evatt
would have become public property. The political reaction would have
: been tremendous.--But I did not do so. On the contrary, I gave a
direction in an-entirely contrary sense. I went further thanthis.
Early-in the campaign it appeared that some reference to the Petrov
matter. had been made on the public platform. I at once communicated with.
: every Government candidate in Australia and said that as this matter would
receive judicial investigation I wanted-it kept out of: a political campaign.
I have every reason to believe that this request of mine was scrupulously
observed. Why it should be thought that, having-cunningly-schemed to
produce Petrov on the eve of an election, I should then go to all sorts of
trouble to defeat my own scheming, I am at a loss-to understand. At an
equal loss will be all Australians whose minds are not unbalanced by
delusions or obsessions.
It will be remembered that my announcement of a Royal Commission
was unanimously approved by the House. It will also be remembered that
the Bill which I introduced on August 11th, 1954, to put beyond doubt the
authority and powers of the Royal Commission: and the protection of: its
proceedings, a: Bill which included the: names of the Royal Commissioners
and: the Terms of Reference, was-unanimously: approved by-the House. -In
other words, the House, -including Dr. Evatt, specifically authorized the
three Judges to conduct their investigation . into-the mattersassigned-to
them. But Dr. Evatt, for reasons of his own, was gravely disturbed-by
what might appear. He, therefore, on the pretext of appearing for two
people, went as Counsel before the Royal Commission. It was clear, from
the outset to everybody, including the Communists,. that his object was to
destroy the authority and reputation of a Royal Commission whose creation
he had voted for. Before he had ever studied the documents in court
he set out to-suggest conspiracy, fraud-and forgery. He was listened to
with exemplary patience. He created an atmosphere entirely delightful
to the Australian Communist Party. The Royal Commission therefore very
properly, though expensively, devoted a great deal of time to listening
t allegations, most, or all, of which he repeated last week. All I need
do is to remind the House that when it made an interim report on these
matters the Royal Commission said:
' Appendix No. 2.
' 36. Apparently, in these circumstances, Dr. Evatt conceived the theory
that he and the political party which he-leads had been made the victims
of a political conspiracy and he nroceeded to cross-examine the witnesses
before us with that in mind. After the withdrawal of his permission to
appear, his juniors continued in the same line.
' 37. Charge followed charge with bewildering variations. Suggestionswere
made of blackmail, forgery, uttering, fabrication, fraud and
conspiracy and upon the repeated assurances of Dr. Evatt that his
examination of witnesses was directed to these matters and would prove
them.-we felt constrained to permit him great latitude in his questioning.
This we-felt bound to do, since an exhaustive-inquiry by us into the
authenticity of Exhibit-J was part of our duty.
' 38. Lockwood was very willing to follow and exploit the line taken on
behalf of Grundeman and Dalziel.
' 39. As day followed day -and . all that we heard was-constant reiteration
of vague charges of-infamy, we demanded of counse'l, on 1st September, that
they formulate with-some exactitude their-allegations. Dr. Evatt then
charged that Exhibit J had been fabricated by the Petrovs as part of a
political conspiracy with the enforced aid of O'Sullivan who, he alleged,
has-been blackmailed into collaborating in the fabrication of the document
and into inserting therein-as sources the names of himself, Grundeman and
Dalziel. The political conspiracy was alleged to be one to injure Dr. Evatt
and the Australian-Labour Party by procuring the false insertion in Exhibit
J of the names of three of his secretaries as sources witt theintention
that the Petrovs should-so nicely time their actions that Exhibit J could
be produced and published on the eve of the Federal elections in 1954.
He further-charged that al least one-senior officer of the Australian
Security Intelligence Organization, Richards, had-been guilty of-serious
derelictions of duty in-that, without proper care and inquiry, he had
accepted from Petrov fabricated documents, had paid him large sums of public
money for them, and had ' uttered' these documents, presumably to the Prime
Minister of Australia.
' 42. Although, in the result, all the charges turned out to be
fantastic and wholly unsupported by any credible evidence, they were
grave and necessitated patient-judicial inquiry by us.
57We heard the -evidence of: all persons who, so far as we could-see,
would be able to throw any light on these allegations, and there were
placed-in our custody and examined by us the contemporaneous-Security
reports and records, including wire recordings of certain -significant
conversations relating to Petrov's decision to: leave the Soviet -service
and to the receipt of the documents handed: by him to Richards. The
evidence of these persons, supported as it is by the contemporaneous
records, entirely disposes of all suggestions of improper or negligent
conduct on the part of Richards or any other officer of the Security
Service. Indeed, we think that these officers. acted with high intelligence
and complete propriety in difficult and delicate : circumstances'
But I must concede that Dr. Evatt is not easily cast down.
He has indeed performed . the astonishing feat, backed by Mr. Molotov's letter,
of-asking that an International Commission be set up to investigate the work of
thesethree Australian Judges though -he has himself -said, as I understand him,
that -the results of their enquiry were -insignificant : and fruitless. . I -will
leave it to the Australian peop. le to decide whether -they have soilittle
faith-in their own judiciary as to wish to have its work reviewed by an
international body including, anong others, -the -very people against-whom-the
findings of the Royal Commission -arc directed. At-the-risk of', repeating
myself I point out to the House that Dr. Evatt's passions, , which -he -has
with-careful preparation exposed to the House, are against -the -Prime Minister
of his own country and for the Foreign Secretary of-the Soviet Union;
against -three Australian Judges of impeccable reputation: and-for-some
nebulous -and hypothetical international commission; against-the -Australian
Security Service headed by a distinguished: and patriotic Australianand-for
people -like Sharkey and Clayton. The truth -is, of course, that-the one
passion . animating his-mind here, as before the -Royal-Commission, is-for
-himself. -So far as it pretends to be -a passion -for. justice it -is demonstrably
false. His defence of Clayton is indeed noteworthy, One of: the -things
that proved Clayton's activities was Frances Berrie's evidence. She was
* a Communist employed in Dr. Evatt's own office, and deposed that-she -had
given to Clayton documents taken from Dr. Evatt's office!
He says that I knew all about Petrov in 1953.
All I-need-to say on-this -matter -is that I had-never heard of
-Petr. ov -before his defection -in April of 1954. -Dr. Evatt's case-td
the-contrary-is, on-analysis, quite laughable. -When one-looks-at-it
one-sees -that -it-is entirely-based upon-what-he has-read -in a-book
published -under -the -name of -Bialoguski. It-is perhaps worthy of -note
Sthat he spoke -with contempt -about -this man-and-accepted his -evidence -in
i -book only -when he -thought it told. against me. It appears -that
Bialoguski did-call at my office at Canberra, as-I have -asertaind-from
my then Private -Secretary, on October 7th, 19$ 3.
My -then Private Secretary, Mr. Yeend, who though relatively
junior has a-high reputation-in the Civil Service, -saw-him-and-disposed of
his problem, as he -thought, to Bialogusl's -satisfaction. -There was -no
need for Yeend to mention -the matter to me and he did not do-so.
After Bialoguski published -an account -of -the -episodhein thenewspaper
in June of-this year Mr. Yeend gavd. me his recollection of -it.
He states that he did not receive a ' sealed envelope' fom
-Bialoguski, that -Bialoguski's chief complaint -was -that -he -was -asking -for
higher pay-and-that Yeend referred this matter to Mr. Spry and-thatat
no -stage -was -the name of Petrov mentioned nor -was mention made of the
possibility of -any diplomat's defection. Mr. Yeend has -said -to -me . that
it could be -inferred from Bialoguski's book that in October 1953 I knew
of the work he was doing and knew of his visit to-Canberra. Mr. Yeend
confirms that he certainly made no mention to me of either Bialoguski's
complaint or even his existe It was not until after Bialoguski's
-appearance before the Royal Commiission that Mr. Yeend placed him as -the
man he had-interviewed. A few days later he mentioned to me,-for the
first time, that the man ( Bialoguski) -who had just given evidence-had
called and-seen him-in 1953.
-But Dr. Evatt'-s charges do not rest there. Driven on by his
-strange obsessionThe says that -a plan -for Petrov's reception was-communicated
to the Heads of Commonwealth Departments on the 17th February,
19-54. -The fact is that no plan was communicated to any department.,
Early in February, 1954 I now learn that the Solicitor-General and the Secietar
of -the Department of -External Affairs as -individua. Ls were -warned of-the
possibility of a defection. This warning was given orally-by. the Director-
General andwas -given to no other people except the-Attorney-General and-the
-Minister -for External Affairs. I was -myself told-that-there was-the
possibility of a-defection-but the identity of the -subject was not disclosed,
-not did I ask for it. The head of my Department : was not'informed at any
, stage prior-to the actual defection. I -repeat -that I had not -heard of Petrov
before his actual defection in April of 1954.
-12-
Dr. Evatt, posing as the universal defender of: liberty,
has made the case of Madame Oilier his own. Not only has he broken
all records as an Opposition Leader by communicating with the Foreign
Secretary of another country in order to get a distant and uncrossexamined
denial of charges found to be true by an Australian tribunal
but he has, so he boasts, performed the remarkable act of-writing to a
French Court presumably to tell. that court how it ought to conduct its
business. Under these circumstances it is desirable that the Oilier
matter which incidentally, was publicly unknown until September 4th,
1954, should be seen quite clearly.
The Royal Commission was not concerned to find Madame Oilier
guilty or innocent of an offence against French law. It has stated
its attitude very plainly in Chapter 11 of its Report. What it said was
that the Soviet M. V. D. had a basic design to obtain through Madame Oilier,
who was an officer of the French Embassy in Canberra, the cypher and
cyphering techniques used by the French Embassy and-such other secret
information as might be useful to the Soviet. The Commissioner's -said:
( paragraph 610) ' It-appears also from-the evidence that-some time prior
to Pakhomov's departure from Australia in June, 1952, he had, on-behalf of
-the given Madame Oilier a watch-costing Mrs. Petrov and
Pakhomov selected the watch at a shop in Canberra; Pakhomov took the
watch and later reported that he had given it to Madame Oilier. Mrs.
Petrov paid the œ 35 purchase price from the M. V. D. funds and accounted for
it to the Moscow Centre, which did not question the payment. Neither of
the Petrovs could fix-the date of the purchase of the watch, nor could
they swear whether or when Pakhomov had in-fact handed it to Madame Olier.'
It also quoted the Moscow letter of January 2nd, 1952, relating to Madame
Oilier confirming the object of the enquiries and. suggesting that meetings
should occur-at places-located-at a distance of 40 to 10 miles from
Canberra. The Commission went on to find that Madame Oilier had met
Petrov at Cooma and also that to encourage her she had-been presented with
an expensive watch. The Commission went on to find that the results of
what it called ' these laborious and persistent efforts of the M. V. D. were
almost negligible.' It concluded by saying that: " The evidence clearly
establishes that in respect of Madame Oilier espionage was conducted by
two members of the Soviet Embassy in Australia, namely Sadovnikov and
Petrov, and a Tass representative, namely Pakhomov, all acting as espionage
-agents under the specific direction of the Soviet Government.'
These findings excite the passionate indignation of Dr. Evatt.
Yet, in fact in the recent proceedings in France I understand Madame Oilier
admitted the Cooma contact and the receipt of the watch. No doubt the
-French Court felt that her ' indiscretions':, shall I -say, had been adequately
punished by the fact-that she had been imprisoned for-some. two months before
the trial. But all this is of little significance in the Petrov Enquiry.
What is the charge? It will not be thought very convincing by most people
that Dr. Evatt should be quite passionate about the Oilier affair being
investigated in Australia in the absence of evidence by Madame Ollier,
when he is so obviously pleased that Madame Oilier-should
-be set-free in France -in the absence of evidence of the Petrovs. The
* ttuth is that the-rear charge -is, I -fear, against me. To-use his own
picturesque -language, -I amasupposed to have ' spirited' Madame Oilier out
of-Australia and arranged to have her held -incommunicado in another
country. The Royal Commission has stated the facts quite accurately. I
' do not share Dr, Evatt's-devotion to -instructing other-countries as to
h-ow they -should-conduct -their business. As I have-. already indicated,
all -I-did was to say that-the French -Ambassador -in Canberra should : be told
* im-uadvance-that Madame Oilier's name was going to-be mentioned -and that hewould
no doubt-seek-instructions-from his own people. What happened then?
I merely read the Royal -Commission': s Report:
' 599. In -view of these circumstances, ahortly after-the -defection and
before our first-sittings the Department of External -Affairs con identially
notified-the -French Ambassador of -the reference to Madame Oilier contained
-in the Moscow Letters,: and -she was sent -by her -Ambassador to Noumea, where
ishe-would be-cut off not only from-access to-secret communications -and
* ciphers -but also-from any dangerous associations-she-might possibly-have
formed. ' 600. The-evidence concerning Madame Olier was heard by us-in private
: session -in Melbourne on 20th July 1954. -Because of diplomatic-immunity
and-later her-absence from Australia, she could-not be: subpoenaed to
attend-and she did not attend the session. Opportunity was-afforded-the
French Ambassador to be repr.: srnsd at the -session, but this was not
availed of. We agreed to supply him with the transcript of the proceedings
and to withhold its immediate publication in order to give the Freihh
Government -an opportunity ofstusying it and of making such arrangements
as it considered appropriate. Later, the French Ambassador having-agreed
-to the date of publication, the transcript was publighed on 4th September
1954. ' 601. We assume-that the-transfer of Madame Ollier-to Noumea and-the
-abstention of-the -French Government -from-availing-itself of-the opportunity
-afforded it to be represented -at our Inquiry were partly because of-itas
desire that-any proceedings-in connection with hershould-take place on
-French-soil and-in accordance with French legal procedure, and partly-because
it would not be -in -accordance with diplomatic practice -for -her
Government -to waive-its immunity and-rights under international -law and
permit her to give evidence. We were, of-course, willing to-hear-her-if
-her Government had waived its immunity, and this -we made known.
-' 602. In-fact the French Government, after-receiving the transcript
made -its own interrogation of her -in Noumea, and -in consequence Madame
Ol1ier was -arrested there and-sent to -France -for further interrogation.'
-14-
my 27 years in Parliament I do not remember any debate so
astonishing as this. I-would have thought thattwhen a democratically
elected Parliament unanimously approved of a Royal Commission-and by Statute
unanimously approved of the names of the Judicial Commissioners, . a dis-
-cussion upon their Report would have concerned itself with whether dangers
to the country had been revealed and whether any, and if-so what, . steps
ought to be taken to prevent repetition of those dangers. I would certainly
not have supposed that a Member of Parliament professionally-employed on
behalf of some of the Parties would have taken the occasion to challenge the
character and capacity of the Royal Commission and. to seek to invalidate its
findings by the very-simple expedient of selecting one. or two facts out of
thousands, and one or, two questions and answers out of-scores of thousands
in order to discredit the Judges and the Counsel who appeared to assist them.
Nor would I have thought it likely that Parliament should be invited to reopen
and pursue charges already described by the Judges as fantastic and
unfounded. But this is not all! It has been clearly found that there were
leakages from the Department of External Affairs from 1945 to 1948 when
Dr. Evatt himself was the Minist-:. So serious were these regarded that-the
Security Organization was set up by Mr. Chifley himself. That-Organization
-was placed under the direction of a South Australian Supreme Court Judge,
Mr. Justice Reed, who was on loan from the State of South Australia. When his
term ran out my own Government appointed Mr. Spry. The effective maintenance
of the-Service was obviously a desirable thing. A. S. I. O. is not a police
force ( nor, incidentally, has it ever proposed to take over any Commonwealth
Police Force). It is an Intelligence Organization. It must be obvious
. to a child that in the Intelligence field there should be the closest
-collaboration between the civil and-military arms. Is there something wicked
about having an Intelligence Organization a Counter Espionage Organization?
Are we to leave-it to the spies to do their work unchecked? Do spies of
other countries operate for our good, or our security, or our future? The
business of counter espionage is a business which requires great character,
great courage, great skill and considerable freedom of action. Honest
. Australians will be more easy in their minds to learnfrom this Royal Commission
-Report that our security organization has been so effective that in the last
six years practically no information has been-secured. by Communist agencies.
-All this is so elementary and so clear that one is at a loss to understand why
the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of this country,
should be at such patient pains to destroy the reputation and the efficacy
of the Security Service. On behalf of that Service I reject and condemn the
allegations that have been made that it has acted in a political way. The
men who constitute it are patriotic, skilful, and industrious men.' It willbe
a poor thing indeed if men in such a Service are given to understand that
if their investigations are not agreeable to the Leader of the Opposition
they may expect to encounter dismissal and-infamy if a change of Government
occurs.
At the risk of-straining the patience of-the-House, I add
this. In the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, the
reputation of A. S. I. O. is very high. Its handling of the Petrov case
has been the subject of commendation and congratulation. This is
important, for, without mutual trust and confidence between the Security
Services of those countries and ourselves, information. will be withheld
from Australia, as indeed it frequently was-before 1949 and the establishment
of the Security Service.
Under all these circumstances, it is a wicked thing that. such
a consistent campaign should have been conducted by the Communist Party
outside this House, and by Dr. Evatt inside it, for the express purpose
of weakening confidence in and therefore rendering it less
effective for its purposes of counter espionage. I do not hesitate to
say that this is one of Dr. Evatt's principal purposes-in this matter.
He has not concealed his violent hatred of that Service and of the people
who make it up. It wi4l be, I hope and repeat, abundantly clear that,
should he become the head of the Government of this country, the present
senior personnel of the Service will be dismissed and the possibility of
getting adequate recruits utterly, and perhaps permanently, destroyed.
This is a dreadful manoeuvre. All I can do to counter it is to state, on
behalf of the Government and, I believe, on behalf of the overwhelming
majority of Members, that we regard these Security Officers as men of
capacity and integrity and patriotism. So far as my Government is concerned,
we will do everything in our power to protect them'
It is, of course, the very fury of Dr. Evatt's obsessions against
the Security Service which has led him to turn away from his consistent
battle on behalf of Australian communists to make his now celebrated appeal
to Mr. Molotov. This appeal would be childish if it were made by an
obscure nonentity. It becomes atrocious when it is made by a leader who
is an aspirant for the Prime Ministership. Could anybody have believed
that a Royal Commission, sitting for many months with patient care and
making findings as a result of its investigations, should have those findings
curtly rejected by the very Government whose activities those findings have
exposed, a government which in fact closed-its Embassy here and destroyed
its records. A new procedure has been invented by Dr. Evatt himself on
behalf of communist-espionage. It is as if,-after the person-in the dock
has been convicted by the jury, Dr. Evatt springs-up and-says to the
convicted person, ' Were you guilty?' and the person replies ' I was not.'
Dr. Evatt then turns, denounces the Judge, denounces the jury, denounces
counsel, and-denounces all the witnesses-who-have given evidence-for the
Crown. Such conduct may be novel and arresting in an ordinary court.
It would be regarded-as some evidence of eccentricity, and would certainly
lead to a process of contempt of court. Internationally, it represents
a studied insult to Australian Judges, Australian judicial procedures, and
an Australian report.
-16-
Altogether too little attention has been paid to the valuable
results which have proceeded from the defection and disclosures of the
Petrovs. To deal with local matters first, it must be obvious to
Honourable Members that, but for the disclosures and the investigations
of the Royal Commission, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. O'Sullivan
and Mr. Grundeman would still be with Dr. Evatt in this building, and,
but for the last election result, attached to the Prime Minister, and that
the espionage of the Soviet Embassy would-still be both operating and
unknown. But even more important -is that the information provided by the
Petrovs, only some of which came within the scope of the Royal Commission,
has proved invaluable to other democratic countries. Petrov himself, as we
know from the United Kingdom authorities is the most senior defector from
any of the Soviet intelligence services since 1937. As such he has been
able to supply more information than any previous single defector regarding
the espionage activities of the M. V. D. Both of the Petrovs have, in fact
since April 1954,. been continuously supplying information, some affecting
the security of Australia and, possibly more importantly, some providing
general intelligence of great assistance to the Western domocracies, which
intelligence has not, and of course cannot, be made public.
I want to inform the House that communications with the United Kingdom
Security authorities show specifically that the information obtained from
Petrov is in many cases confirmed by information held abroad and, in other
cases, has enabled a material addition to their information. In point of fact
scores and-scores of-Soviet Intelligence operatives working in democratic
countries have been identified as a result of the disclosures of the Petrovs.
In addition to all this, they have, of course, supplied-invaluable information
regarding Soviet Intelligence methods of operation and techniques of
espionage. I will not. need to remind the House-that the recent events regarding
Maclean and Burgess, and the case in Sweden, were striking confirmation of
the accuracy of what the Petrovs have had-to say.
I think I should add that, under all these circumstances, Honourable
Members will agree that it would indeed-be astonishing-if no money had been
paid to the Petrovs for-their protection and their maintenance. The-whole
idea is farcical. The Royal Commission-fully investigated this matter and
found it completely proper.
And so I come to the end of what I have to say. I have referred to
those who are charged by Dr. Evatt. But honourable public opinion will
acquit them, beyond question. But the same honorable public opinion will
not acquit the man who made these reckless and villanous charges; nor will
it acquit those who have, in this House, authorized those charges and by
17-
their presence and support countenanced them. If there: is a charge to
be made it is this. Dr. Evatt has, from first-to last-in this matter,
for his own purposes, in-his own interests and with the enthusiastic
support of every Communist in-Australia, sought to discredit the judiciary,
to subvert the authority of the Security Organization of Australia, to cry
down decent and patriotic Australians and build up the Fifth Column of our
enemies. I am therefore, compelled to say that, in the name of all these
good and honorable men, in the name of public: decency, in the name of the
-safety of Australia, the man on trial in this debate: is Dr. Evatt himself.