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 HAYLEN (Parkes) .- While listening to this debate I was amazed to hear a statement from the normally orderly and kindly member for McPherson (Mr. Barnes) that the white man and the black man could not live together. I did not think that in this year of grace 1961 we were going to hear the old moan of the squatter who has attempted to remove the aboriginal from the face of this country by the same sort of methods as are now being practised in South Africa. When one considers the thinking of the Australian Country Party one realizes that it is pretty retrograde, but I did not think it extended to the display of this sort of mentality in this day and age by such a kindly person as the honorable member for Mcpherson.

But what have caused me some concern have been some of the statements made repeatedly by honorable members opposite, mostly by members of the Country Party, like the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson). Others who have made the statements to which I refer are the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) and the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), of whose words I made particular note. These honorable gentlemen have made these statements as part of their argument about whether or not we should accept the situation that has come about in South Africa, and the things that have occurred in the life of the Prime Minister of this country in relation to this problem. In an attempt to keep us away from the vital nature of the problem that we must discuss here they keep asking us: "What did you do about Tibet? What did you do about Hungary? " They are particularly afraid of the word " red ", but they are very tender towards red herrings, and in this case the worst offender is, of course, the lieutenant-colonel from Hume. If he wants to know something about what happened in Tibet 1 can do no better than read to him what the " Encyclopaedia Britannica " says another lieutenant-colonel did to Tibet in the sacred name of the British Raj in 1902. I paraphrase the account given in the " Britannica" because I have only twenty minutes at my disposal. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica " says that Sir Francis Younghusband, a lieutenant-colonel like the honorable member for Hume himself, in 1902 led a British mission to Tibet which later became a punitive expedition. A war against the Buddhists of Tibet, against those very fine people whose position brings tears to the eyes of the honorable member for Hume! The object, as stated in the " Encyclopaedia Britannica ", and not in any propaganda on my part, was to beat the Russian menace in those days. At that time the Czar of AH the Russias, the Great White Father, of whom our own great white father is the lineal descendant, was in possession of the whole of Russia, and the fear in those days was a fear of Russia. So the British sent a punitive expedition to Tibet, led by a lieutenant-colonel. What happened when the members of the expedition got there? Did they do anything better or worse than the Chinese, according to the honorable member's own evidence? Let us look at the record in the " Encyclopaedia Britannica ", which says that the result was that Sir Francis Younghusband took Lhasa and occupied the Potala - which is the shrine of shrines, the sacred sanctuary of Buddhism in Asia - with his troops.

Mr Anderson - Where did the Dalai Lama flee to?

Mr HAYLEN - He fled to China. I hope that the lieutenant-colonel opposite will remember that. The Dalai Lama has been a man of vast excursions. Sometimes he goes to India, but when he flies to China that is wrong with the lieutenant-colonel. Then, after an occupation of two years or so, what did the tender-hearted militarists of that period do to the Tibetans, whose position now wrings tears from the stonyhearted member for Hume? As stated by the " Encyclopaedia Britannica ", by the treaty of 1904 the Dalai Lama paid 2,500,000 rupees as reparations. That is a lot of rupees in any man's language, and it is a lot of wool to China in the language of the honorable member for Hume. Two and a half million rupees as reparation from the poor distressed Tibetan! Two trading posts were established as part of the reparations; both were on the border with India, and both were rigidly controlled so that all the trade went to India. And you gentlemen opposite are talking about trade with red China!

Mr Turner - I wish to take a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the honorable member in order in giving a lengthy apologia for Chinese atrocities in Tibet, in the course of this debate?

Suggest corrections