He hoped that Great Britain and France, which had both sacrificed so much, would defend their own interests, and not let their future be decided for … - Billy Hughes

They had now come out of the wilderness after a struggle which had torn the world to pieces. ... They had been opposed by the greatest instrument ever devised for the destruction of democracy—Prussian militarism. ... National safety for Australia was now in Australia's possession, and only their own folly could ever let that firm foundation on which they stood crumble beneath their feet. They had now the policy of a White Australia firmly established. (Cheers.) Australia was in the position of being able to say that Australia could be held now by the Australians. (Cheers.) He had had always appreciated the necessity for preparing for the defence of their great heritage. There had never been a day in the past when he had not seen quite clearly that the time would come when Germany or some other nation would endeavour to wrest it from them. The people of Australia were five millions, and they could never hold that country except by the means used by the Australian Imperial Force to achieve victory.

There is urgent need for population, but, of course, it must be of the right sort, and it must go to the right place. We do not want to make Australia a dumping ground for the world’s refuse populations, or to bring population to our already overcrowded cities, for such newcomers would not for the most part produce new wealth, but only share the wealth already there.

Amongst those who are opposed to a sound economic policy are the pacifists. I am not surprised. A sound economic policy for Britain means material loss to Germany, and the pacifists seem to have a tender regard for her interests. “The Paris Economic Conference resolutions,” said Mr. Henderson, “must be strenuously opposed.” That is exactly what Germany said to Russia at the point of the sword. That was how Germany expressed the triumph of Prussianism. And Mr. Henderson says exactly the same thing. He goes on:—“British Labour desires to maintain the policy of the open door.” And Germany also desires us to maintain the policy of the open door. Emil Zimmerman says:—“The rise of Germany is due essentially to the British policy of the open door. Without that we should be at one stroke once more the Germany of 1870.” It is certainly curious, to say the least of it, that while England and Germany are locked in a life-and-death struggle an Englishman should agree with a German that the policy vital to the welfare of Germany should be maintained by Britain.