Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 12 April 1961

Mr UREN (Reid) .- 1 remind the honorable member for McPherson (Mr. Barnes), who has just resumed his seat, that this is the year 1961. We are not living during Queen Victoria's reign in the 1890's. This is 1961 and we must bring ourselves up to date. I know that the honorabl member for McPherson is an advocate of the great white father. He adopts the attitude, " Leave everything to the great white father; he will look after all our cares." The honorable member has presented an apology for South Africa, but he forgets to say that of the 12,000,000 people in South Africa only 3,000,000 are white and the remaining 9,000,000 are coloured. Yet the white population of South Africa occupies 88 per cent, of select lands in South Africa and the remaining 12 per cent, of inferior lands are handed over to the 9,000,000 coloured persons. This is the policy of apartheid. It is a policy of the racial supremacy of the white people.

The honorable member for McPherson said that the white man cannot live with the black man. I say that that is not right. I say that the white man can live with the black man and that we must live together with our black brothers because we live in the one world. I remind honorable members on the Government side of the House that in the United Nations, the parliament of the world, the Afro-Asian nations - the black and yellow coloured people - have a majority. On the one hand we say to them, " We want your vote ", and on the other hand we say, "We do not want to associate with you; you cannot live with us, because black and white cannot mix ". I do not accept that philosophy. 1 believe the black man is as good as the white man, and the sooner we realize that this is so the sooner there will be peace in the world. 1 support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) which seeks to have the Prime Minister resign from the portfolio of External Affairs because he has been a disastrous Minister for External Affairs. The Prime Minister has at long last accepted the view that apartheid is a bad policy. He now says that it is bad, but why has it taken him so long to reach this conclusion? It would have been wonderful if the Australian people could have said, " Our Prime Minister is a man of courage and a man of principle ". It would have been wonderful if we could have regarded our Prime Minister as the Prime Minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker, is regarded. John Diefenbaker knew where he was going. He sent out messages and the Afro-Asian and Latin American countries have rallied round with pride to support him for the leadership he has shown.

I shall quote from the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 2nd March, 1961. The article is headed " Leading Role for Canada in Talks on Apartheid " and under the dateline London, March 1st, states -

The Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, will be the key man when Commonwealth Prime Ministers discuss South Africa's membership, says the Diplomatic Correspondent of " The Times ".

In Kuala Lumpur, the Malayan Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman, said yesterday that Mr. Diefenbaker would set the pace on the question of South African racial discrimination, " but I shall attack South Africa unreservedly on its policy."

The Prime Minister of Malaya was prepared to attack the South African policy, but what did our Prime Minister say? He was with Sir Roy Welensky. They formed the Welensky-Menzies colour-hatred clique. That was the real support that our Prime Minister had, because he still believes in the white man's supremacy. The only reason our Prime Minister changed face was because he knew he would be out on a limb. He knew he would be out on a limb with Portugal, the most backward colonial power to-day. That is why he had a change of face. He did not have a change of heart; he had a change of face.

Our Prime Minister has shown great admiration for Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of South Africa, and has said he is a most sincere man. He said this only last night. I have been given by the Prime Minister's Department a copy of the speech made by our Prime Minister at the Savoy Hotel in London. He made this speech on 21st March.

Mr Browne - How do you know he made it?

Mr UREN - All you need do is go round to the Prime Minister's Department and the Press Secretary will issue you with a copy of the speech made by the Prime Minister at that dinner. If my Kalgoorlie friend would go back to his electorate and do some thinking about the problems of the aborigines in his electorate, he would be facing up to things and doing a little better than he is doing by shouting out stupid interjections that he does not understand. This is what the Prime Minister said -

I don't moralize about South African policy because I think moralizing is a pretty cheap thing. All I say is that I don't think apartheid will work. You see, this is the pragmatic British approach. Nothing was more impressive to all of us in this conference than the way in which Dr. Verwoerd with obvious honesty, with great courtesy, with great lucidity explained his policy.

There is evidence of the great admiration which the Prime Minister has for Dr. Verwoerd. Great admiration was also expressed by the Prime Minister for another person, Adolf Hitler - a very similar type to Dr. Verwoerd. The Prime Minister, then the Attorney-General of this country, was addressing the Sydney Constitutional Association on 24th October, 1938, when he frankly declared his admiration for Hitler's dictatorship) -

If you and I were Germans sitting beside our own fires in Berlin, we would not be critical of the leadership that has produced such results.

That is the statement of the same Prime Minister who admires Dr. Verwoerd. He admired Adolf Hitler in earlier days. Hitler was a great advocate and Verwoerd is a great advocate of racial discrimination. Dr. Verwoerd wishes to persecute the black people. Adolf Hitler was anti-Jew and antiblack man. But our Prime Minister admires Dr. Verwoerd! We know what the South African attitude was during the last war. We know the Afrikaanders' attitude when our troops were going through South African ports during the last war. We know there were Nazi sympathizers and it is the same element to-day which is keeping the black man in subjection and preaching white supremacy.

There are many subjects I would like to talk about. Unfortunately my time is limited; but 1 wish to say a few words about disarmament. The Leader of the Opposition last night made a great, human call for disarmament and for efforts to make sure that the money spent wastefully on armaments at present is diverted to help the backward nations and to try to rid the world of hunger, disease and poverty. The nations of the world, because of fear - there are certainly plenty of honorable members on the Government side of the House with a fear complex - are spending fifty billion pounds a year on war materials. I say that the sooner we begin disarmament talks and settle these problems, the sooner we will have world peace, which can only be obtained through successful disarmament.

We must face up to the issue of disarmament. The only great power outside the United Nations is People's China. People's China must be admitted to the United Nations if we are to have successful disarmament talks. The " Sydney Morning Herald " and the Melbourne " Age " on many occasions have advocated a new line of thought by the Australian Government on this matter. Even " Muster ", the official organ of the graziers of New South Wales advocates a new line - the admission to the United Nations of People's China. Last night the Prime Minister, in his usual form, spread the old, familiar smokescreen about the difficulty of admitting People's China to the United Nations to try to cloud the issue. He is known now as " Smokescreen Bob ".

The position is quite clear. In 1955 the Australian Labour Party, at an historic conference in Hobart, decided that it would support the policy of Mainland China's admission to the United Nations. Many people have said, and the story has gone out - this is the scream coming from the opposite side of the House - that the admission of People's China or Mainland China to the United Nations would mean the selling out of 10,000.000 people on Taiwan. Let me remind honorable members opposite that at the Cairo conference it was decided that there was only one China and that Taiwan was handed to the Chinese Government under Chiang Kai-shek after the war. That was done.

Later, there was a revolution in China, and Chiang Kai-shek withdrew his forces to Taiwan. I believe that Mainland China will not come into the United Nations unless Formosa goes out. Let us say that if Mainland China comes in Formosa goes out, but let me remind honorable members that it does not make any difference. The American forces and fleet are still supporting the Chiang Kai-shek regime on Taiwan. It will have to be a matter of peaceful negotiation between the People's Government of China and the Chiang Kai-shek regime on Formosa. I wish to remind honorable members opposite, if they will keep quiet, that there have already been 100 meetings between the Chinese authorities representing the Government of People's China and the American Ambassador to Poland in Warsaw. These meetings will continue and it will be a matter for peaceful negotiation, to decide the position of Taiwan. We have said that we will support People's China in an application for a seat in the United Nations. That is all Mr. Chamberlain has said. He has never said anything more than that, and yet the smear, the lie and the innuendo would have us believe that he said he would hand over the 10,000,000 people on Taiwan to Communist China.

If honorable members on the Government side of the House want to hear some criticism of their friend Chiang Kai-shek on Taiwan - they are all in the Chiang lobby; the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight) and my friend the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) are supporters of the Chiang Kai-shek regime - let me quote from the " Daily Telegraph " of 6th October, 1960. An item from Hong Kong headed. " Chiang Sparks off World Hostility ", reads as follows: -

The uproar caused by the arrest in Taipeh of Mr. Lei Chen, one of the three organizers of an opposition party to the Chinese Nationalist regime in Formosa, has served to reveal incidentally the personal unpopularity of Chiang Kai-shek abroad.

Mr Anderson - What are you quoting?

Mr UREN - This is the Sydney " Daily Telegraph ", of 6th October, I960. I seem to upset supporters of the Government with a bit of honest criticism. I wish now to quote from the "Canberra Times" of 21st October, 1960. Under the heading, " Chiang Kai-shek finds Opposition in Formosa ", we read -

Now, suddenly, political unrest has come to a boil. There is open opposition to Chiang's party. The items in the opposition leaders' indictment of the Kuomintang sound distressingly similar to the charges hurled against Syngman Rhee's government in South Korea last spring: "Rigged elections . . . intimidations at the polls . . . corruptions . . . too much concentration of power ... no freedom of the Press". Among the 55 leaders are Lei Chen, 64, magazine publisher who has been openly critical of the Kuomintang; Li Wan Chu, 60, newspaper publisher, and Henry Kao Yu-Shu, 57, former mayor of Taipei, the capital city.

There is further criticism. May I again remind the honorable member for Lilley that his golden idol, Syngman Rhee - that great Syngman Rhee; the great popular leader of South Korea; the great defender of human rights - was also open to criticism. How often did the honorable member return from South Korea and in this place voice his praise of Syngman Rhee?

We on this side support the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and his condemnation of this Government's foreign policy. It is a negative policy; it is a Queen Victoria policy; it is a backward policy. We on this side have an aggressive policy, an independent foreign policy and a policy which will give friendship to the Afro-Asian and LatinAmerican countries.

Suggest corrections