PRIME MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE, LONDON, 1951.

Dr. Donald Alastair Cameron, O.B.E.
Oxley (Queensland)

Dr. DONALD CAMERON.— ...Perhaps the influence that Australia exerts in the world is out of proportion to its size. I remind the House in passing of the great exertions that we made in two world wars. The influence that we have we exercise, first, as a member of the British Commonwealth, and secondly, in conjunction with our powerful ally, the United States of America. There are limitations upon what we can achieve by ourselves. It is impossible for a nation of the size of Australia to pursue a free and independent foreign policy based entirely upon its own desires. We must realize that, whatever our desires may be in the realm of external affairs, they must be pursued in co-ordination with the British Commonwealth, of which we are a part, and the United States of America, whose power and influence constitute a dominant factor in the world to-day...

PERSIA.

Reginald William Colin Swartz, M.B.E., E.D.
Darling Downs (Queensland)

Mr. SWARTZ.—In view of the conflicting reports concerning the situation in Persia, will the Minister for External Affairs make a statement to the House at the earliest possible moment and indicate the facts and any action that has been taken by the Government to influence the Government of the United Kingdom in the firm handling of the situation? As the Minister is aware, Australia is vitally interested in Persia, as Abadan is one of the sources of supply of petroleum for this country. Would the Minister also include in the statement any information available regarding the extent of Soviet Russia's influence on the situation?

Mr. CASEY.— The Government has been following with considerable anxiety the course of the dispute between the Persian Government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, not only because the outcome will affect the supply of oil products from the Abadan refinery to Australia, but also because the dispute may effect the stability of the Middle East. The Government has been kept informed constantly by the Government of the United Kingdom about the course of the dispute, and, indeed, the facts have been related in the press substantially accurately and substantially fully from day to day. The Government has made certain observations to the Government of the United Kingdom concerning the dispute, although, as the negotiations are between the British Government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on the one hand, and the Persian Government on the other hand, Australia has no standing in the dispute. I understand that the present situation is that a proposal was made by the Persian Government to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which was rejected by the company. [AIOC] A counter proposal was made which, I understand, has been rejected in turn by the Persian Government. One can only say that the situation is one of very considerable anxiety. I do not believe that there is anything else that can be said publicly on behalf of the Government that would do other than complicate an already complicated situation. The Government is following the position with care and anxiety, and can only hope for a satisfactory outcome.

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1951-52.
SECOND READING.

Reginald William Colin Swartz, M.B.E., E.D.
Darling Downs (Queensland)

Henry Jefferson Bate
Macarthur (New South Wales)

Mr. SWARTZ.— World attention is focused on Persia at present because of its strategic and economic value to both of the main opposing camps in the world. When we examine the map and see that Persia is bordered on one side by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Afghanistan and Pakistan and on the other side by Iraq and Turkey, we realize the immediate strategic implications of that country in the present international situation. Furthermore, the economy of Persia is tied to oil production. Therefore, for both strategic and economic reasons that country has been the centre of a cold war since the termination of World War II. Oil concessions in Persia are of inestimable value to the British Commonwealth and the United States of America. Honorable members should realize that Russia has a treaty of friendship with Persia, which was signed in 1921 and which allows Russia certain rights, so far unexercised, in certain areas of the country. Russian influence is being brought to bear very strongly in Persia at present and the situation is aggravated by the existence of the three major problems of illiteracy, poverty and disease amongst the local populace. For the time being, the flow of oil from Persia has virtually ceased and there is a strong possibility that supplies from the Middle East generally will decrease seriously in the future. This great source of petroleum is essential to the British Commonwealth. Australians should not delude themselves on this issue. One method of solving the problem may be to revive the plan for an international oil agreement, which was contemplated some years ago.

BUDGET 1951-52.

Eldred James Eggins
Lyne (New South Wales)

Mr. EGGINS.— I shall now deal with the budget in general terms. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has acquired a worldwide reputation, and has been the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Therefore, I was astounded when the right honorable gentleman completely omitted from his speech last Tuesday any reference to the serious threat that is offered by the Communist bloc to the democratic way of life. He completely disregarded the developments in Korea, Persia and other parts of the world. The happenings in Persia bring home to us the realization of how weak in resources the Old Country has become. Years ago, the British nation would never have tolerated what it is now tolerating in Persia. As the result of its socialist administration, the United Kingdom has become so weakened that it is obliged to accept the situation in Persia. But, above all, that is a threat to Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister for External Affairs in the Chifley Labour Government, seemed to think that developments in the international sphere were not of sufficient importance to warrant a comment by him. I hoped that the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) would fill in his leader's omissions, but he merely treated us to an entertainment. He should have trained for the career of a light comedian at the Tivoli theatre. Grave problems confront Australia, yet the honorable gentleman treated his responsibilities lightly. In fact, the general attitude of members of the Labour party to those problems indicates that they have no realization of the seriousness of the plight of their country, or, if they have such a realization, they have no intention of accepting their responsibilities.

PERSIA AND EGYPT.

The Honorable Archie Galbraith Cameron
Speaker

Mr. SPEAKER.— I have examined the proof report of the question that was asked yesterday by the honorable member for Angas on the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. The right honorable member for Barton challenged the use of two terms that were employed in the question, namely, “Its (the British Government’s) mishandling of the Persian crisis”, and “the last vestiges of British influence in the Middle East”. It appears to me that those very matters are the subject of controversy in countries beside our own. I am unable to apply any one of the many dictionary meanings of the adjective “opprobrious” to any part of the question to which I have referred that was asked yesterday. When objection is taken to words used in the House and a withdrawal is ordered, such withdrawal must not be in deference to Mr. Speaker, who is enjoined by Standing Orders 77, 78 and 79 to take action. A withdrawal must be unqualified. The British usage is described in the fifteenth edition of May’s Parliamentary Procedure, at page 440, as follows:—

BUDGET 1951-52.

Charles William Davidson, O.B.E.
Dawson (Queensland)

Mr. DAVIDSON (Dawson).— There has heen no acknowledgment by members of the Opposition of the urgent need for defence preparations. Instead, many of them have talked of trivialities such as the effect that this budget will have upon the prices of ice cream, popcorn and toys. Has it been forgotten that in Korea Australians are now fighting for the principles of democracy and are playing this country’s part in the fight that the United Nations is waging in support of democracy against communism? Has it been forgotten that not very long ago the British High Commissioner in Malaya was foully murdered by Communist bandits? Has it been forgotten that recently the whole of the British Empire, and possibly the entire democratic system, suffered a severe reverse in Persia as a result of the mishandling of a situation there? Has it been forgotten that in Egypt those who some of us came to regard with the utmost contempt many years ago are now challenging Great Britain? Unless we all do something about these matters when history comes to be written in 50 years’ time some of those events may be cited as the beginning of the disintegration of the British Empire. Yet, in the face of a situation of this kind, some honorable gentlemen opposite have actually talked about the effect that this budget will have upon the price of icecream cones. That amounts almost to a repetition of what happened many years ago, when a Roman Emperor fiddled while Rome was burning.

PERSIA.

Rt. Hon. William Morris Hughes, O.H., K.C.
Bradfield (New South Wales)

Rt. Hon. Robert Gordon Menzies, K.C., Prime Minister
Kooyong (Victoria)

Mr. HUGHES.— I refer to the confiscation by the Persian Government of the leases and refinery held by the Anglo-Persia Oil Company in the Abadan oilfield, and I ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister for External Affairs, what steps have been taken to safeguard Australian interests under the 1920 agreement with that company?

Mr. MENZIES.— We have been in constant communication with the Government of the United Kingdom about the matter that the honorable member has raised. At the moment, I am not able to add anything to the remarks I made recently on the subject.

BUDGET 1951-52.

The Honorable Philip Albert Martin McBride
Minister for Defence (Wakefield)

Mr. McBRIDE.— In the limited time available to me I shall not be able to reply to all the matters that honorable members have raised in respect of the proposed votes for the defence services. The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) is on the extreme left of his party in his approach to the problem of defence. He is the Aneurin Bevan of the Labour party in Australia because he said, definitely, that we were expending too much upon defence. He contended, in effect, that Australians want butter before guns, and thus implied that living conditions in this country are unsatisfactory. The honorable member should consult with some of his colleagues, who, I am happy to say, do not share his views in that respect. He indulged in a long discourse about oil. He criticized the Government because, so he alleged, it is not doing sufficient to obtain ample supplies of oil. When the Government assumed office it abolished petrol rationing and since that time no shortage of oil, of petrol, has been experienced. In spite of the loss of a substantial source of supply in Persia we have been able to maintain substantial oil supplies with the assistance of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America, and as the result of vigorous activities on the part of oil companies in this country.

The honorable member’s suggestion that the world oil position is worsening is not in accordance with the facts. The great difficulty that confronted the world after the refinery at Abadan closed down was in respect of not crude oil but refined spirit. As a result of the dispute in Persia world refining capacity has been curtailed, but in the meantime active steps have been taken by many countries to increase their capacity and it is anticipated that within a reasonably short period we shall be able to meet all our needs, particularly under peace-time conditions. The honorable member’s sneering reference to the 5,500,000 unemployed in the United States of America was most unfortunate. I do not know on what authority he cited that figure, and I do not question it. However, it is most unfortunate that a member of this Parliament should reflect upon the one country upon which the democracies rely and which is meeting its obligations under its pact with Australia. We should also remember the assistance that we received from the United States of America in the past, and the assistance that we anticipate we shall receive from it in the future.