Senate
17 October 1950

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- APPLES
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- CHILD WELFARE
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
QUESTION
- KOREA
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION
QUESTION
- DOLLAR DEFICITS
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- MEAT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK
ORDER OF BUSINESS
COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950 [No. 2]
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1950 [No. 2]
COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950 [No. 2]
- Second Reading
MR. FADDEN CHIDES RELUCTANT FOLLOWER
ADJOURNMENT
PAPERS

I then replied that I would discuss the matter with the Minister for- the Navy and ask him to confer with the Naval authorities in order to decide whether the proposal is desirable and practicable. The Minister for the Navy has now furnished the following information: -

The Navy Department is’ anxious to assist to the greatest possible extent in the formation of naval cadet units. With this in view, the Naval Board has given official recognition to the Navy League sea cadet corps, and, in conjunction with the Navy League, is endeavouring, consistent with the facilities available, to form additional units.’ At the present time, Navy League sea cadet units exist at the Footscray Technical School and the Geelong Grammar School, Victoria. Owing to the shortage of officers and rating instructors, it is not possible at present to form more units, as all available effort is required for the Permanent Naval Force and Reserve Force training. The naval sea cadet units must also have equipment, such as boats, and be close to a waterfront. At the moment, available equipment is required for the .training of recruit;. I can assure the honorable senator that his interest in the necessity for an adequate training ground for personnel for the Royal Australian Navy is greatly ‘ appreciated, and all possible assistance will be afforded to schools for the institution of sea cadet units.

page 808

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the’ Minister for Trade and Customs in a position to confirm or deny newspaper reports to the effect that the Prime Minister, during his recent trip abroad, was not permitted to enter Korea to inspect Australian personnel in action in that country?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is “No”.

page 808

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that a committee of this chamber is at present sitting to consider the appropriate amendments that should be made to the Constitution in order to reform the Senate-

Senator Fraser:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable senator in order in asking a question concerning a report that has not yet been discussed in this chamber ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I do not yet know precisely what the honorable senator’s question is.

Senator WRIGHT:

-‘ Will the Leader of the Government refer to that committee a suggestion that it consider the substitution of the Federal Labour party executive for the present Labour majority in the Senate for the next two years?

Question not answered.

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Prime Minister any knowledge of charges made by wholesale meat suppliers in Brisbane to retail butchers for meat which is not supplied?
Will he cause to be investigated complaints made by retail butchers in Brisbane to the effect that they are charged amounts varying from £10 to £50 per week by wholesale butchers for pig meats which are not supplied to them?
Will he investigate the retail prices charged by retail butchers in Brisbane for beef and mutton in order to recoup the charges made by wholesale butchers for pigs which are not supplied to the retail butchers?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Australian Government has no knowledge of charges made by wholesale butchers in Brisbane to retail . butchers in Brisbane for meat not supplied to them. I suggest that the appropriate authority to investigate such complaints is the Queensland State Prices Commissioner.

page 810

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

. How many shares of the various trading banks were hold by the Commonwealth Bank or the Government at the10th December, 1949?
What was the purchase price of the shares ?
What number of shares were disposed of to the end of September, . 1950?
At what price were the shares disposed of?
Who were the purchasers of the shares?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

The following shares were held by the Commonwealth Bank: -

The total cost was £633,001.
102,394 shares.
Sales which were spread over a period of five months from February to June, 1950, were effected through normal channels at current market prices and yielded total proceeds of £651,634.
The information is not available.

page 810

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of the debate upon Government Business, Order of the Day No. 1 (Communist Party Dissolution Bill) being called on forthwith.

The PRESIDENT:

– Therebeing an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

page 810

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 5th October (vide page 323), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– The measure before the Senate Ms not new to the Senate. We have had the provisions of this hill before us, in exactly the same form, on a prior occasion. It is not necessary, therefore, for me to recapitulate all that I have said both during the second-reading debate and in the committee stages. However, I take this, the earliest opportunity, to say that I confirm and emphasize every word that I uttered in relation to this matter when asimilar bill was before the Senate on a previous occasion. The next thing I want to say is that yesterday the federal executive of the Australian Labour party met at Canberra, considered the attitude of the Australian Labour party in relation to this particular measure, and issued the following statement:

The Federal Executive of the Austral ian Labour party has given further consideration to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. It hashad regard to the fact that in June last the Labour majority in the Senate passed the bill in a. form which enabled the Menzies Government - if it so wished - to do all the f ol lowi ngthin gs : -

to ban the Australian Communist party and expropriate its assets:

to ban organizations which supported or were a.gents of the Australian Communist party - and to expropriate their assets:

to render liable to imprisonment for five years any person doing any act in support of the banned organizations or their objectives;

to remove Communists from the Commonwealth Public Service and from office in trade unions.

The Federal Executive has also had regard to -

the refusal of the Menzies Government to accept Labour’s amendments designed to ensure the application of the fundamental principles ofboth British and natural justice in respect of declared organizations and declared individuals;

the entirely untruthful statement of the Prime Minister and members of his Government alleging that Labour supported communism and sought protection for Communists: and

the bill contains drastic provisions which were not disclosed to the people during the election campaign.

The federal executive asserts that the Menzies Government wishes to avoid responsibility for giving effect to the main purposes of the bill; to avoid its election pledges in relation to communism and to conceal its abject failure to take effective steps to prevent the great ills that flow from the spiralling costs’ of living.

The federal executive has decided that, to test the sincerity of the Menzies Government before the people, and to give the lie to its false and slanderous allegations against the Labour party, that the bill should be passed in the form in which it is now before the Senate.

The federal executive affirms that the Federal Parliamentary Labour party is fully justified in its criticism of those controversial clauses of the bill and the amendments proposed thereto.

However, in the light of considerations already set forth it directs the Federal Parliamentary Labour party to withdraw its opposition to the bill in the form in which it is now before the Senate while leaving all members of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party free to criticize the controversial clauses.

The federal executive further directs the Federal Parliamentary Labour party to insert Labour’s amendments in the legislation immediately upon its resumption of governmental office.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That will not be for a long time.

– I remind both the Attorney-General and the Minister for Trade and Customs that I claimed that if the Government had in its possession information that would have enabled it to demonstrate the truth of those recitals, it was a craven government, lacking in its duty to the people of Australia, if it did not act on the statements contained in the recitals. Therefore, we come plainly to the position that the recitals are no more than a belief and are not provable. I made that point completely and clearly, so the Minister for Trade and Customs was in error when he said that the Opposition had not questioned the recitals in the measure.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Did the honorable senator vote against them?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Opposition believes that the recitals are true, but I put them in their proper perspective from the point of view of the Opposition, and I challenge any Government supporter in this chamber to say that he Call demonstrate their truth. Honorable senators opposite know quite well what the next step would be. I should know what to say to honorable senators opposite and what the people of Australia would say.

The second point to which I wish to refer is the Minister’s statement that a declaration under this bill was nit an allegation of a crime because no provision was made in the bill to fine or imprison a declared person. That is the most amazing argument that I have ever heard from the mouth of a lawyer. It means, in effect, that whether or not a certain action is a crime is determined not by the ingredients of the allegation, hut by the penalties prescribed. That is an entirely novel proposition. Under this bill a person will be declared because his activities are regarded as being prejudicial to the. security and defence of this country. That is a plain allegation that he is subversive and a traitor. Will anyone deny that that is an allegation not merely of a crime, but also of the most serious crime that can be committed against the Australian community?

I leave the Minister’s speech with those two comments and pass to the matter that arises out of the statement made by the federal executive of the Australian Labour party that the bill contains drastic provisions which were not foreshadowed during the general election campaign. It will come as a shock to the people of Australia to realize that any Australian may be declared under the terms of this bill, first, to be a Communist, and secondly, to be a traitor to his country. In order to demonstrate how far the Government has departed from its pre-election policy, let me read carefully what the Government parties jointly said in their policy speech. The joint policy reads as follows: -

No person now a member of the Communist party-

That is, no person who was a member of that party on the 10th November, 1949 - shall be employed or paid a fee by the Commonwealth; nor shall any such person be eligible for any office in a registered industrial organization.

The only persons who were to be debarred were those who, on the 10th November, 1949, were members of the Australian Communist party.

Senator Spicer:

– All of them !

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, all of them. This bill, however, provides for the declaration not only of members of the Australian Communist party, which was the restriction contained in that policy-speech, but also of all persons who may be regarded as Communists within the meaning of the wide definition used in the measure. It picks up all those who are referred to in clause 25, including those who have attended one meeting of the Communist party, those who have distributed its literature, those “who have spoken publicly in advocacy of the Communist party, and those whose names appear on a document or list seized at Marx House, Sydney, in a raid made while the Labour Government was in office, which purports to show that they were members of the Communist party. The provisions of this bill, which purports to relate only to members of the Australian Communist party, not only go far beyond what the Government submitted to the people during the general election campaign, but they are also wide enough to enable the Executive Government to declare any individual in this country. Whether that power is abused or not, it should not be vested in any government without provision for the persons so declared having the fullest right to appear before the courts-

Senator Spicer:

– Why will not the honorable senator vote against the bill?

Senator McKENNA:

– I have already intimated the reasons why I shall not do so. Obviously, the Attorney-General was not listening to my remarks.

– On the same declaration.. Now that the die has been cast in relation to this matter, so far as the Opposition is concerned I do not wish to .traverse it very much further, but I do repeat that my purpose in touching upon the provisions I have mentioned was to show that the Government is sponsoring a measure which is a plain denial of British justice, and a casting aside of the courts of the land: It is in breach and violation of natural justice and is completely opposed to the principles of democracy. The Government is seeking to fight the evil of communism with, perhaps, the greater evil of totalitarianism,

Senator Reid:

– Vote against it, and let the people decide.

Senator McKENNA:

– We shall let the people decide. It is highly probable that this measure will be pronounced upon, not in the courts of this country but in the international court of the world. On the 10th December, 1948, a universal declaration of human rights, by which Australia, being a signatory to it, is bound, was made by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I shall refer briefly to two articles of the declaration and then invite the Government to examine the bill in the light of those articles. Article 2 reads as follows: -

Every one is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The first portion of Article 11 reads -

Every one charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Russia also signed that declaration.

Senator McKENNA:

– It may well be that Russia or some other country will raise the question of this bill before the General Assembly of the United Nations. I venture to say that, irrespective of the country that raises it, when the provisions of the bill, divorced from the political acrimony that is, unfortunately, inseparable from debates in this Parliament, are examined in a coldly objective light by the General Assembly, the Australian representatives will be ashamed of it and of the Government that sponsored it. I believe that, for the first time in the history of this nation, Australians will be ashamed of themselves.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I rise, not to gloat over those who have withdrawn their opposition to this measure, but to endeavour to correct statements that I believe to be untrue and misleading which have just been made by Senator McKenna and have been made from time to time during the course of the debate on the bill. Honorable senators opposite have sought to lead the Australian people to believe that they have been willing to agree to the passage of a measure under which the Communist party could be effectively banned and Communists removed from office in the Commonwealth Public Service and Australian trade unions, but they caused to be inserted in the bill provisions that would have made it impossible for the Commonwealth to ban an organization on the. ground that it was a Communist organization or remove any person from office in a trade union on the ground that he was a Communist. The Government, realizing that the amendments enforced by the Opposition in this chamber would have’ had that effect, would not accept them. It stood firm and insisted that the bill be passed in the form in which it was presented to the Senate.

Clause 5 of the bill as originally presented, provided for the banning of affiliated organizations of the Communist party. I agree that the Communist party itself could be banned under the bill as amended by the Labour party, but that is not true of affiliated organizations of the Communist party or organizations established under some other name to take its place. The relevant portions of clause 5, in the form in which it was originally presented to the Senate, read as follows : - (1.) This section applies to any body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, not being an industrial organization. . . .

Which is, or purports to be, or, at any time after the specified date and before the date of commencement of this act was, or purported to be, affiliated with the Australian Communist Party . . .
1. A majority of the members of which . . were . . . members of the Australian Communist party
Supports or advocates . . . the objectives, policies, teachings, principles, or practices of communism.

I do not think I have omitted to read any relevant portion of the clause, which covers approximately one-third of a page and which applies to organizations that are Communist organizations or controlled by Communists. The Government sought to declare an organization of that kind when it was discovered. The original proposal was that such an’ organization, having been declared, could apply to a court to set aside the declaration on the ground that it was not a Communist organization or a Communistinspired or dominatedbody. The Opposition would not agree to that proposal. It said that it was not sufficient for the Commonwealth to prove that an organization was a Communist organization or a Communist-dominated organization, and that the Commonwealth should be required also to prove that the organization had been engaged in subversive or treasonable activities.

Similar considerations apply to individual Communists. Clause 9 of the bill, in the form in which it was originally presented to the Senate, read as follows : - (1.) This section applies to any person -

who was, at any time after the specified date and before the date upon which an unlawful association is dissolved by this Act, a member or officer of that unlawful association: or
who is, or was at any time after the specified date, a Communist.

The Government sought authority to declare a Communist when it discovered him, and proposed that a declared person should have the right to apply to a court to set aside the declaration on the ground that he was not a person to whom the provision applied. Once again, the Opposition said that it was not enough to prove incontrovertibly that a man was a Communist, and that the Commonwealth should be required also to prove that he was engaged in treasonable or subversive activities. Under the bill as amended by the Opposition, Brown, Thornton or Healy would be able to walk into a court and openly declare himself to be a Communist, but nothing could be done to him.

I believe that I have controverted the statements made by honorable senators opposite that they agreed to a measure under which Communists could have been dealt with. When the points that I have just made are brought to their notice, they say, “ That is all right. The Commonwealth should have to prove that declared persons are engaged in subversive or treasonable activities “. In answer to that argument, I say only that Opposition senators who took that stand agreed without demur of any kind to the complete banning of the Communist party and the appropriation of its assets and on no occasion argued that the Commonwealth should be required to prove that it was engaged in subversive or treasonable activities. Their action in this instance indicates that they believe that the Communist party is a treasonable organization and it follows that those who are proved to be Communists, or members of the Communist party, are also traitors to this country. I am glad that at least the federal executive of the Australian Labour party has had enough sense to see that it was sufficient to prove a man was a Communist in order to be able to remove him from a position where he could damage the economy of this country. I do not propose to traverse all of the other arguments that have been advanced by Senator McKenna because they savoured more of the legal phraseology of the law court than of any vital principle. I shall conclude by saying that if I were a supporter of a ma jority in this chamber and a measure which I truly believed clashed violently with natural justice and the principles of democracy, and which was a totalitarian measure, came before it, I would be ashamed of myself if I did not use that majority to vote against the measure. It will be interesting to see what will be the result.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– Up to a point, I agree with what has been said by Senator Gorton. However, despite the shame with which he attempts to saddle me, I have not altered my opinion about this matter since the last occasion on which I addressed the chamber on it. I make an earnest appeal to the Government to review the provisions of the measure and extend to persons other than known Communists the right of appeal, even that has been provided for Communists. Opinions that I have obtained from eminent legal authorities in various parts of Australia support the opinions that were advanced by Senator McKenna when this matter was first before the Senate, and which were reiterated by him to-day. I have obtained the opinions of King’s Counsellors and other legal men. all of whom have pointed out that the intention of the present anti-Labour Government is to give to banned Communists the right of appeal from a declaration. Even the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has stated in this chamber that no right of appeal has been provided in relation to the second charge, that is, that the person is engaged in. or is likely to engage in, subversive or seditious activities.

Senator Spicer:

-The right of appeal against the declaration is provided for.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I point out that even during war-time aliens enjoyed the right of appeal in order that they might prove that they were not engaged in subversive activities.

Senator Spicer:

– This measure only applies to Communists.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I shall read to the Senate a statement that I have prepared, incorporating a legal opinion that I have obtained. At appropriate places comment has been added, but honorable senators, particularly those with legal training, should be able readily to distinguish the comment from the legal opinion. It reads -

Mr. Menzies and his Government, forced by public opinion, including his own and the returned servicemen’s press, and members and supporters of his own party, has pretended to relent so as to provide a fair and proper right of appeal. That is a rank imposition. lt is a false pretence which, apparently, has deceived the newspapers, the public, and even some of his own supporters in the House. A man cannot lie declared unless he is supposed to be both a Communist and a person guilty of subversion. The right of appeal is specifically restricted to only one part, viz., whether the person is a Communist. He has no right of appeal on the question whether he has been subversive.

I believe that the Attorney-General admitted that this was so when this matter was first before the chamber. To this point, I think the _ Government will agree with this legal opinion. The Minister has interjected that this provision applies only to Communists. However, I stress that this King’s Counsellor’s opinion states that there are two charges and that there shall be a. right of appeal only in connexion with the charge that a person is a Communist. I shall not go into all of the’ ramifications about whether he has to be a member of the Communist party, because that aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by Senator

McKenna. However, the statement continues -

Even on »the question whether .the person is a Communist, the right of appeal is very much a false pretence. The proposed clause in the bill, it is true, provides that if the person declared “ gives evidence in person “ the hurden of proof shall be on the Commonwealth. Every one knows how difficult it is to prove a negative. It would be specially difficult to prove positively that a “person is not a Communist within the very wide definition of communism which is given in this bill. It is not limited to the revolutionary and unconstitutional aspects of communism. If, on the oral evidence adduced, the court cannot make up its mind positively as to whether a person is or is not a Communist, the appeal would have to be dismissed, because the proposed amendment says that the declaration, which is the subject of the appeal, is to be prima facie evidence of its correctness.

This aspect of the matter was dealt with by Senator McKenna precisely in accordance with the legal opinion that I am citing. The statement containing that opinion continues - :

If that prima facie evidence is not displaced by oral evidence which enables the court to find affirmatively that the person is not a Communist, then the appeal must be dismissed.

Throughout it is a question whether the person is a Communist; there is no provision for an appeal in relation to alleged subversive or seditious activities. The statement goes on to say -

The Commonwealth, therefore, under its proposed Act, in those circumstances, would discharge its burden of proof by merely proving its own declaration - the very thing which is challenged and subject to the appeal.

I emphasize that it does not apply to both charges. Continuing, the statement points out -

The fact that the appeal is only as regards one-half of the declaration and that the dice are loaded against the appellant by making the declaration prove its own truth, make the proposed amendment the worst instance of political false pretences of which even Menzies lias ever been guilty.

Senator Spicer:

– That does not sound much like the opinion of a King’s Counsellor.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The AttorneyGeneral will recollect that I mentioned at the outset that comment was interwritten with the legal opinion.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– Is the author of the statement a member of the Peace Council?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I have been very careful to pause where I have added comment at appropriate places. The statement continues -

It is said that we must give no quarter to Communists. Even those who subscribe to that doctrine should pause to remember that the right of appeal is given to a man who has never yet been heard at all.

The thing is preposterous, and yet it is contained in this bill. Apparently, the right of appeal is given so that it may be decided whether the person is or is not a Communist. It would be begging the question to assume that he is a Communist, and to say that he deserves no consideration. What if he has been declared although he is not a Communist? What is the question that must be decided by the tribunal to which the appeal is made? The man has not been charged, but the Government says that he is a Communist. According to the opinion to which I have referred, two charges are implicit in the one declaration : The first, that the person declared is a Communist; the second, that he is engaged, or is likely to engage, in subversive activities. Senator Gorton sought to cast shame upon the Opposition, but I do not know what the parties that support the Government will use for an election cry now that Labour opposition to this bill has been withdrawn.

Senator Spicer:

– We are not afraid of an election.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I did not suggest that. However, it has been suggested by honorable senators opposite that the Labour party is afraid of an election. Well, let me remind honorable senators that, during the last war, there was a terrible debacle in Belgium, and the British nation was supposed to be down and out. The British forces withdrew to a new strategic line, which was Britain itself, but eventually Britain won the war. There may be justification for a withdrawal by the Labour party to a new strategic line, and eventually we may win. Honorable senators opposite should not forget that, the Government will have to administer this legislation. I appeal to the Government to include in it a provision giving a declared person the right to defend himself against the declaration. The form of the provision I leave to the legal fraternity, but as to the need for it, I have not altered my opinion. During the debate on this bill, the Government and its supporters, and a good many people who are what I may call ranting mad about the Communist element in Australia, have been careful to gloss over one feature of this legislation. The first four clauses of the bill deal with the dissolution of the Communist party, and the confiscation of its funds and assets, which are to be appropriated to the Crown. The AttorneyGeneral may be interested to know that I have obtained a legal opinion on that proposal, too. It is challengeable, and probably will be challenged in the High Court. There is N to be no appeal by the Communist party, but the right of appeal to the High Court, or a Supreme Court of a State or Territory, is to be given to an individual who has been declared a Communist, so that he may have an opportunity to prove that he is not a Communist within the mea.ning of the act. Thus, the right of appeal is to be given to a person who, in the opinion of the Government, is a Communist. That is an extraordinary thing.

– I have said what I believe to be correct, and I am now asking that the persons to whom I have referred should be given the right to defend themselves against the declaration that they have engaged, or are likely to engage, in activities prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth. A declaration, in effect, makes two charges. A declared person may appeal successfully against the first charge that he is a Communist, but, against the second, he has no right of appeal and that is the part of the charge that sticks. That is my objection. By declaring a person the Government say, in effect, “ We are naming you as a seditious person. We shall not tell you in what respect your activities are or are likely to be seditious. We shall not give you the ordinary civil right of being heard before you are declared to be seditious. The consequence of the declaration will be that, if you are a Common wealth employee, you shall lose your job, or, if you are an officer of a trade union, you shall cease to hold office. You shall be branded forever by our declaration. Even after you have been declared, you shall not be able to challenge the declaration before any court of the land. You shall be judged guilty, without a hearing, without a right of appeal, and without even knowing at any time the substance of that which is alleged against you “. That is a denial of fundamental justice extending far beyond the mere question of onus of proof. It means the substitution of totalitarian trial, condemnation and disqualification by a political executive, for the ordinary processes of justice that have been our pride and heritage. It is the considered opinion of the Australian Labour party that legislation of this kind cannot be justified. Consequently, Labour has insisted until now upon amending the bill in such a way that the ordinary course of justice would prevail. We realize however that our efforts are useless, but, at the very first opportunity, we shall take action to ensure that proper access to the courts shall be given to declared persons in order that they may defend themselves. I shall not delay the bill any further. I have no reason at all for altering the opinions that I expressed on this measure previously. I am convinced that the Government will encounter so many grave difficulties in administering this measure that, once again, it will endeavour to lay the blame for all our troubles upon the Labour party and its alleged association with the Communists. That has been the technique of honorable senators opposite for a long time. I have no doubt that before long, merely because of the difficulties that the Government is bound to meet in administering this iniquitous measure, the Labour party will again be spoken of in abusive terms and charged with furthering the ends of communism.

Senator VINCENT (Western Australia) [4.25 J. - Addressing this chamber for the first time - a task which I can assure honorable senators I regard as an honour indeed - I must confess that I am somewhat mystified by the present attitude of honorable senators opposite towards this bill. To my mind, the situation is somewhat Gilbertian. In fact, I am reminded of a passage from one of the well-known Gilbert and Sullivan operas. From memory, it is as follows : -

When in that house M.P.’s divide,

If they’ve a brain and cerebellum too,

They’ve got to leave their brain outside,

And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to.

That, I believe, expresses some of the feelings and sentiments of honorable senators opposite.

This is a most important measure. I believe, in fact, that it is one of the most important bills that have ever come before this chamber in the history of federation. Modern warfare has seen the development of a completely new and revolting system of espionage. It is a powerful, underhand, and deadly weapon, more terrible than most modern weapons of warfare, and comparable in many respects with the atomic bomb. I refer particularly to the fifth-column of Soviet Russia. In comparatively recent years, we have seen the growth of that column in this country. Hardly a week passes without further evidence of its work being given. Therefore, this bill is primarily a security measure. Its object is to prevent the Russian fifth-column, from ruining this country. The bill has certain secondary aspects which, in my opinion, have been given far too much prominence by the Opposition. On every conceivable occasion honorable senators opposite have claimed that the Government’s reason for bringing down this bill is primarily economic; but the measure goes much further than that. Its economic aspect is incidental. Primarily, as I have said, the bill is a security measure, and that is why I say that it is most important.

I propose to confine my remarks to the onus of proof clause which is the main point in issue between the Government parties and the Opposition. Much irrelevant discussion has taken place in this chamber on that clause. The reason why a good deal of irrelevant matter has been discussed by Opposition senators in regard to that clause is obvious. They have endeavoured to create panic among the people of this country over a normal and ordinary piece of legislation which is strictly in accordance with the principles of British justice. Fearful stories have been told and retold about this measure being contrary to the provisions of natural and British justice. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that it conforms strictly to the principles of British justice. The case for the Opposition was very well expressed by Senator McKenna in the second-reading speech which he made when the measure was before the Senate on an earlier occasion. On the 30th May, 1950, the honorable senator is reported in Hansard at page 3315 to have said -

Whilst supporting the broad principles of this bill which I outlined at the commencement of my speech, namely, the destruction of Communists and their eradication from key positions in trade unions and in the Public Service, we, on this side of the chamber, are in direct conflict with the Government on the methods that it has chosen to adopt to achieve these ends.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls) . ( - Order ! Is the honorable senator quoting from a Hansard “ flat “ of Senator McKenna’s speech?

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– No. I am quoting from his second-reading speech asit is reported in Hansard. Senator McKenna continued -

At the outset, putting on oneside what we all understand as a well-known concept of British justice, there are certain rules of natural justice that are recognized by every court in the whole of the BritishCommon-wealth, and in every civilized community. I shall read them to the Senate. They are as follows: -

No man shall be punished - without a trial; without being given particulars of what is alleged against him; without being given reasonable time to prepare his defence; without a hearing at which he can face his accusers and cross-examine them; without an opportunity to be heard with his witnesses in his own defence; without an impartial trial authority.

There are two other great principles of British justice which also are applied universally by courts except in rare cases wherethey are expressly negatived by the legislation. The first is the presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person until he has been proved, according to due processes of law, to be guilty. The second is the obligation on an accuser to satisfy the trial tribunal beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of a person accused. In other words, the accused and not the accuser receives the benefit of any doubt about his guilt. Those are great principles of natural justice and I am proud to say they are principles of British justice.

I, too, am proud to say that I agree with these principles of British justice. I agree that every word that Senator McKenna h:id to say in relation to these principles. The honorable senator then argued that some of those principles which I have read - he did not say precisely which of them - have been violated by this measure. With respect I point out that the honorable senator made a fatal mistake, for all the principles enunciated by him are principles of criminal law, which have nothing whatever to do with this measure, which deals, among other things, with an application made ‘by a person who has been declared. Incidentally, Senator McKenna agrees with that part of the bill which provides for the declaration of persons and organizations. The onus of proof clause does not specify any criminal offence and it does not contain any provision for punishment. I submit, therefore, that it is nonsense for the honorable senator to claim that the principles of criminal law should be applied in a measure such as this.

Senator Sheehan:

– Would a person declared to be a traitor to his country regard it as nonsense?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT Order! Senator Vincent is making his maiden speech and must be heard in silence.

Senator Sheehan:

– I am sorry for having interrupted. I had overlooked the fact that Senator Vincent is making his maiden speech.

Senator VINCENT:

– The mere repetition of the claim cannot make those principles apply to this measure. But let us assume that the principles of criminal law, including those outlined by Senator McKenna, do apply to this measure. To what extent does the bill outrage those principles ? The first principle enunciated by Senator McKenna was that no person shall be punished without a trial. If, in fact, declaration can be regarded as a punishment, the bill doe3 not contain any provision that a declared person shall be punished without a hearing. In fact, provision for a hearing is contained in the onus of proof clause. So much for Senator McKenna’s first principle ! His second principle was that no person should be punished without being given particulars of what is alleged against him. Again, the bill pre scribes that particulars of the declaration shall be published in the Gazette. No person who has even an elementary knowledge of the principles of law can contend that the second principle enunciated by Senator McKenna has in any way been infringed by this bill. Senator McKenna’s third principle was that noperson shall be punished without being given reasonable time in which to prepare his defence. The bill prescribes a period of 28 days for that purpose. Even if that time were found to be insufficient the court would extend it on the application of counsel for the applicant. Thus, the third principle outlined by Senator McKenna is carefully safeguarded in this measure. His fourth principle was that no man should be punished without a hearing at which he can face his accusers and cross-examine them. I am certain that the Attorney-General would welcome a declared person who sought to face his accusers, and the provisions of this bill do not prevent such a person from doing so. Senator McKenna cannot place his finger on one word in the bill which prevents that principle from being applied. His fifth principle was that no man should be punished without having been given an opportunity to be heard with his witnesses in his own defence. Is there any provision in this bill which would prevent a declared person from approaching the court and giving evidence either himself or through witnesses in his own defence? There is not one word in the bill that would prevent such a person from doing so. The final principle enunciated by Senator McKenna was that no person shall be punished without an impartial trial authority. My only comment in regard to that is that, as far as I am aware, only Communists have ever suggested that the High Court of Australia has ever at any time been unfair.

Senator McKenna forgot to mention another most important principle of British justice which qualifies all the principles to which I have referred - namely that it is not an inflexible rule of British justice in criminal cases that the onus of proof shall rest on the Crown. For the purposes of argument, I shall assume that the proceedings that arise out of the provisions of this bill can be regarded as a criminal prosecution. That principle applies to all eases where the facts relating to. a particular matter are peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant or the accused, as the case may be. Under clause 9 of the measure before the chamber, the applicant comes within that category, so that that principle of British justice applies to him. I have heard today an opinion said to have been obtained from a learned King’s Counsel, on this matter. I am sorry to say I could not follow all of it, but that portion which I could follow was sheer nonsense. I should like to quote, not only the opinion, but the judgment of the High Court of Australia on this very principle of British justice to which I have already referred.. I refer to the case of Williamson v. Ah On. It has already been quoted once in this chamber, but it does set out the important principle of British justice, which apparently Senator McKenna forgot, that the onus of proof is not invariably on the Crown and not necessarily on the Crown in criminal cases. As is probably well known, Ah On was declared a prohibited immigrant. In a prosecution of that nature the onus of proof is on the immigrant, the person declared, in exactly the same way as it is on the applicant under clause ‘;) of the Communist. Party Dissolution Bill. At the appeal to the High Court it was argued that the onus should nut bc on Ah On to prove that he was not it declared person. Sir Isaac Isaacs, the Chief Justice at that time, delivered a judgment which I shall quote because it is binding on our courts of Jaw a uri it states a principle that all lawyers accept without question. It does not matter very much what ‘Senator McKenna has to say about it, because he is bound by that principle, just as I am. This is what Sir Isaac Isaacs, a very learned and a very impartial judge, said -

The only method so far found effective in which ;i legislature can provide for such a case and secure obedience to its enactments on immigration is to throw the burden of proof as to membership of the community on the suspected person. A nation lias the strongest right to trust its executive officers who are administering the law to be both vigilant and Careful to form, wherever necessary, a fair and honest prima facie opinion us to the citizenship of any person within the territory, and to accuse no one of intrusion except upon strong moral grounds for believing the fact. If such an opinion, however, exists, the public have a right, where the nature of the case requires it, to. call on the suspected person by such ‘procedure as the legislature makes lawful to satisfy a judicial tribunal as to tile actual fact. That seems to me only elementary selfprotection and to be inseparable from any selfgoverning constitution. I must confess to some surprise that it is necessary to justify it. For, otherwise, persons who are criminals, anarchists, public enemies, or loathsome hotbeds of disease, may, by secret or fraudulent entry into the country, and being sheltered for a time by their associates, defy and injure the entire people of a continent. There is nothing in the Constitution and nothing in natural justice, which requires this Court to sanction such mi absurd and almost fatal situation.

Those last few words of Sir Isaac Isaacs are very true and very pertinent to this discussion. Exactly the same principle of natural or British justice - we may call it what we wish - applied in the case of Ah On as will apply in cases to be dealt with under this bill, and nothing that is said can alter the present law of this country and the present principles concerning the onus of proof. For honorable members of the Opposition to say that this simple measure is violating any principles of British justice is utter nonsense. In the words of Sir Isaac Isaacs, there should be no necessity to justify the provisions of this clause.

Some mouths ago, when the Opposition was placed in a quandary as to its policy on communism, it was perfectly obvious that some attack would be made on the bill. But any school boy in Australia knew that that attack was merely lip service to the radical element in the Australian Labour party. Senator McKenna to-day has used some very strong language about this bill-

Senator Hendrickson:

– And it was justified.

Senator VINCENT:

– If such language was justified and if Senator McKenna believes the truth of his statements, why does he not vote against the bill? The honorable gentleman cannot have it both ways. One of the expressions he used was that it was a. foul provision. If he believes that to be true, and if he is a man of integrity-

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable senator cannot question Senator McKenna’s integrity.

Senator VINCENT:

– I am not doing so. I am not saying he is not a man of integrity, but if he believes what he says, why does he not vote against the bill, and why do- not all honorable senators opposite vote against it? If they do not wish to do that, why are they not men enough to say they will vote for the bill and help the Government to eradicate the fifth column that is gnawing at this country’s vitals? They have not the courage to do it.

This -is one of the most important measures ever to have come before this chamber. It is a security measure - a vital security measure. It is in accordance with the principles of British justice. Any man, irrespective of his politics, who comes into this chamber and opposes this bill must be regarded as a potential traitor to this country.

Senator Ashley:

– I rise to order. I take exception to the statement made by the honorable senator that anybody who opposes this measure is a potential traitor to his country. I do not think that is a proper statement to make. I agree that a new senator should be accorded all the consideration possible when making his maiden speech, but I think the honorable gentleman has greatly exceeded the latitude to which he is entitled.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Senator Ashley has taken exception to a particular statement and I ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator Vincent:

– May I ask, Mr. Deputy President, to which statement exception is taken?

– If the honorable senator is so thin-skinned, I withdraw it.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– It is elementary psychology that, by a process of mental projection, when a statement is made reflecting on other people, the very traits attributed to those people are usually possessed by the person who makes the statement. I assume, therefore, that, Senator Vincent is heartily ashamed of the statement he made.

On the 20th September last a meeting of representatives of at least 20 or 30 trade unions was held in the Trades Hall, Melbourne, and was addressed by a leading member of the legal profession in Melbourne. That gentleman possesses the highest qualifications, and he discussed what would be the position of trade unions under the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. This is just a brief summary of what he said -

It is my view that a determined and skilful attempt is being made to weaken the position of trades unions by destroying any power on their part to strike, and so to reduce them to a subservient position, acting really as an instrument of the Government to secure what is called “ discipline “ on the part of workers. This is taking three main forms : first, steps are being taken to include in the immigrants into Australia a stream of immigrants trained in Nazi principles which could ultimately develop into a strike-breaking group. The second is the development of attacks based on section 29 (6) and (c) of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the simple provision in the act making the Arbitration Court a “ superior court of record “. This power is being invoked and enforced as a powerful and- strike-breaking instrument and, unless the procedure adopted is declared invalid by the High Court, trades unions in Australia will be faced with an injunction-making power against striking which has been in operation in America. The third method is skilfully embodied in this bill.”

The dangerous wideness of the definition of Communist in the Bill needs no stressing. Itis quite possible that any member of the Labour party who expresses a belief in the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange might be brought within the scope of that definition. “ Industrial organizations “ are denned in the Bill in accurate terms which would include registered and unregistered unions. Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the power to declare associations unlawful. This1 clause has generally been deemed by its terms to exclude trades unions. This is a fallacy. Only registered trades unions are so excluded. Apart from unions at present de-registered, any Commonwealth union could be deregistered upon application by any person interested or the Registrar of the Arbitration Court for any reason that the Court thought fit or for any wilful disobedience of any order of the court. Therefore, if it was desired to break a strike, the procedure would be very simple; first, the strike; second an immediate application to de-register; third, de-registration ; and fourth, the immediate declaration of the union under what would toe section 5 of the act.

Upon what grounds then could a deregistered union be declared unlawful? All unions should carefully read clause 5 of the bill. If, at any time after the 10th May, 1948, the majority of the members of the executive of the union were members of the Communist party, the union could be declared. If, at any time after that date, it had supported or advocated the objectives, policy, teaching principles or practices of communism as expounded by Marx or Lenin, it could be declared. “Socialization” is one of the objectives, and it is debatable whether this might not be sufficient in itself to bring a union within the scope of this provision.

Finally, any union, the policy of which is influenced substantially by persons who after 10th May, 1948, were Communists within the very wide definition of the act and used the union to advance the objectives of communism, could be “ declared “.

If the act were constitutionally valid an appeal would he of no avail because such a union would be within the scope of the provisions of section 5 of the act.

Upon a declaration the whole of the assets of the union would immediately vest in a receiver, and after the appeal period had elapsed or an appeal had been dismissed the assets would be forfeited to the Commonwealth. The Government would quite probably appoint administrators to carry on the affairs and handle the funds of the union on behalf of the Government, a position which existed only in Russia, and the totalitarian countries.

It should be recognized that the proposed bill gives these powers, and their vital importance to trades unionism should be understood by all.

As one who has had more than fifty years’ active experience of the trade union movement, I remind the Senate that power on paper is one thing and that power in -reality is another thing. The Government will find ultimately that it has forged a weapon that will be used more effectively against it than against those whom it would destroy. In October, 1878, a bill similar to this measure was introduced into the German Reichstag. It contained the following provision: -

Societies which by Social Democratic, Socialist, or Communist attempts, seek to overthrow the existing order of State or society, are forbidden.

This applies also to societies in which Social Democratic, Socialistic, or Communistic attempts directed to the overthrow of the existing order of the State or society appear in a manner dangerous to the public peace, and’ especially to the concord of the different classes of society.

What refers to societies holds equally good of combinations of every kind.

Senator Grant:

– That was sponsored by Bismarck, was it not ?

Senator CAMERON:

– Yes. This Government has followed the German pattern. The German Social Democratic party was driven underground in 1878, but in 1890 it had become the strongest party in the Reichstag, and the measure was repealed. During that period, the activities of the German social democrats were not restricted in the slightest degree. All their printing was done outside Germany. Their literature was distributed more widely and their meetings were held more frequently than ever before. I repeat that the Government will find ultimately that it has forged a weapon that will be used more effectively against it than against those whom it would destroy. The people of England and Canada are sufficiently astute to recognize that fact. As far as I know, no legislation similar to this has been passed by the parliament of any English-speaking country.

Senator Grant:

– South Africa is the only country in which similar legislation is in force.

Senator CAMERON:

– They have yet to reap their harvest. In this war of w ords, we should be prepared to allow our opponents to say exactly what they think of any proposition, provided that they arc reasonably careful in choosing the words with which they express their ideas. All that we should do,> if we can, is to submit thoughts and words that are better than those of our opponents and try to win, on an intellectual ha 9is. the contest on any question that has to be decided. What is proposed in this hill is that physical violence should be used r.o suppress those with whom we disagree, or whom we suspect of holding subversive opinions. That has been tried in the past, but it has never succeeded. During the first world war, the resentment of the people at the Illegal Associations Act and the War Precautions Act was so great that the Government was forced to repeal both of those measures. Apparently, this Government has net learned from experience. It will have to accept the consequences of its own acts. I venture to say that it will find itself in a position similar to that in which the present Government of Victoria finds itself. The Essential Services (.Emergency) Act is on the statute-book of Victoria; but, for reasons that are perfectly obvious to all of us, the Victorian Government has not attempted to enforce it. If it did so, it would find that the very difficult position in which it is placed at the moment would be made even more difficult. Our approach to all these questions should be an intelligent one. We should try to see the other man’s point of view, rather than to suppress him with violence. If the Government acts in the way in which it is said it intends to act,’ it will find that the power that it has written into the Constitution is a power on paper and not a power in reality.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

Senator GRANT:

– It means parliamentary rule, not rule from outside the Parliament.

Senator GRANT:

– Apparently the honorable senator will have to hear it three times before he understands it. Nobody could say that his thoughts were original. The story that he told about Sir Isaac Isaacs has been on gramophone records for months, yet he had the effrontery to tell it with the pomposity of original thought! A charge was brought against Eisler in America, and he was released on heavy bail. He “ skipped “ bail and travelled on a Polish ship to Great Britain. There he was arrested at the instigation of the American authorities. Thereupon, Communist newspapers which previously had been describing Great Britain as an aircraftcarrier for the United States of America and a tool of American finance, redoubled their campaign. Eisler appeared at Bowstreet court before a magistrate, who remanded him for 24 hours. Next morning, the magistrate said to Eisler, “ So far as I know, you have not violated any law of Great Britain that would warrant your extradition to the United States of America. You are dismissed “. When Eisler was released he said that he did not believe that there could be such justice anywhere in the world. That one act by wise old England did more to undermine the Communists than this bill can ever hope to do. I invite the Minis-

T2S]

ter for Social Services, who has looked rather uncomfortable in the last half hour, to contradict that. Shortly after the Eisler incident in Great Britain, there was a general election and even in Whitechapel, the Communist candidate received only 2,000 votes.

– Communism grew out of the evil economic conditions of the workers. Do honorable senators opposite hope that workers will increase production while the price of wool continues to range from 10s. to fi per lb.? In the wool-growing industry the sheep do all the work. The wool industry em- ploys less labour per capita than does any other industry. Does the Government. believe the intelligent worker is not aware of that fact? Does it believe that by this simple feat of legerdemain it will be able to increase production at a time when hig racketeering companies issue bonus shares in order to distribute their surplus earnings to their wealthy shareholders? Although this Government has a deficit of £102,500,000, adopting the tactics of the crook share-broker, it has told the people that it has a surplus of £500,000. If a worker employed on a. road job were offered a job at Prince’s or Romano’s, in which he would earn more in tips in a single night than he would earn in swinging a pick for a whole week, would any one expect him tr> continue to swing the pick in order to help increase the nation’s wealth? Economic equilibrium can never ‘he achieved under present conditions. Do honorable senators opposite believe that twice in a generation the people will allow themselves to be robbed of £25 of every £100 in order to grease the fatted pig? Every day we read that some wealthy and influential company has issued new shares or bonus shares to its wealthy shareholders. In some instances one new share is allotted for every three shares held. The Swift (Australia) Company Limited recently issued one bonus share for each two shares held by its shareholders. Conditions such as these gave rise to the birth of communism.

– There is still one feeble voice from the Opposition benches that can say, “ Hear, hear ! “ to all that, yet we are about to witness the shameful spectacle of Senator Ward and his colleagues pocketing their consciences and voting this measure into law. Despite the fact that they hold independent office in the Senate and are required to vote according to their consciences, they will vote for this measure, believing it to be iniquitous and amazing in its injustice.

Can any honorable senator recall an occasion when all the members of a political party in a parliament, holding that view of a measure, did not oppose it with all the force of which they were capable? I am reminded of the high sounding tune by which another procession was led. The leader of that procession was somewhat pied, as are the leaders of this one, but, unfortunately, on this occasion, these followers will not be hidden in a mountain. They will remain here to exercise their nuisance value by obstructing and delaying other measures introduced by the Government.

The die is cast.

Opposition senators interjecting,

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am amused to see how honorable senators opposite clothe themselves in apparent good humour when I direct their attention to a statement made by Senator McKenna. He said, in effect, “ The die is cast. The executive has spoken “. Then he engaged in a spirited confirmation of all the criticisms he had made of the bill three or four months ago. When we meet persons who conscientiously differ from us upon political questions or matters of public interest, we honour them as long as they fight us fearlessly, but honorable senators opposite, having mouthed platitudes about the liberty of the subject, the arbitrary nature of this bill and its effect upon humble citizens of the Commonwealth, will “squib” it when they are given an opportunity to vote according to their declarations of principle. They will do so because they are frightened of the verdict that the people would give if the question were submitted to them. They will bow to the decision of the executive of their party and will plumb the depths of humiliation.. They are mere puppets.

A significant feature of this debate is that we have listened to an unashamed and unequivocal statement in which an attempt, was made to justify this hypocrisy on the part of a group of parliamentarians by the claim that they are bound by the decision of an outside group. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I venture to suggest that on no previous occasion in British parliamentary history have the members of a political party attempted to justify their aetion in voting contrary to their consciences merely by the claim that they owe allegiance to an outside body. Senator McKenna said this afternoon that the die was cast, and that every member of the Labour party was honorably bound to abide by that decision. It is strange that the honorable senator used the word “ honorably “ in that context, because soon he will vote his conscience out of existence, and agree to the passage of this measure because he fears to face the electors. He will be saved from that predicament by voting for the bill. The significance of what the honorable senator said should not escape notice. I suggest that this is tha first occasion in British parliamentary history when a political party has attempted to justify the surrender of its voting power by claiming allegiance to an outside group.

Senator Grant:

– That is not true. It is not an outside group at all. It is the Labour party.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Honorable senators who wish to have an opportunity to express their views upon this bill will have that opportunity. Senator Wright is stating his opinion. He is not infallible, and what he says is not necessarily correct. Honorable senators should try to restrain their anger when another honorable senator gets under their skin.

Senator WRIGHT:

– In 1910, the highest judicial body in the British Empire referring to a. situation similar to that with which we are now faced, said -

Unless a member becomes bound to the society and to the Labour party by these conditions, and shapes his parliamentary action in conformity therewith, and with the decisons of the parliamentary party, he has broken his bargain. Take the testing instance: should his view as to the right and wrong on a public issue as to the true line of service to the realm, as to the real interests of the constituency which has elected him, or even of the society which pays him, differ from the decision of the parliamentary party and the maintenance by it of its policy, he has come under a contract to place his vote and action into subjection not to his own convictions, but to their decisions. I do not think that such a subjection is compatible either with the spirit of our parliamentary constitution or with that independence and freedom which have hitherto been held to lie at the basis of representative government in the United Kingdom.

That passage condemns the attitude adopted by Senator McKenna.

Senator O’Flaherty inveighed against the fact that, under this bill, a person may be declared, not only because he is a Communist, but also because his activities are subversive. The honorable senator criticized the Government for not providing that a declared person shall have a right of appeal in respect of the allegation that he is engaged in subversive activities, hut the present provision was inserted as an additional protection. Under the Government’s proposals, the Crown cannot declare a person unless he is both a Communist and a person engaged in subversive activities. A declared person will have a free and unqualified right to apply to a court to set aside such a declaration. If the court is satisfied that he is not a Communist, the whole declaration will cease to have effect, not merely that part of it which alleges that he is a Communist. To criticize the bill because a declared person will not have a right of appeal in respect of the allegation that he is engaged in subversive activities is to miss the whole point. It is quite clear that if an applicant shows that he is not a Communist-

Senator Large:

– He has got to show that he is not a Communist. The onus is on him.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– To state the position accurately, if a declared person gives evidence and the Crown cannot satisfy a court that he is a Communist, the declaration will be set aside - not only that part of it which declares him to be a Communist but also that part of it which declares that he is engaged in subversive activities. The declaration will cease to exist.

Let me clear away the misapprehension that Senator McKenna wished to create by his references to trial by jury. The honorable senator did not deny the proposition that if trial by jury were allowed, in most States one dissentient member of a jury would be sufficient to prevent the declaration from being upheld. He said that a government would be weak in administration if it could not scrutinize the political opinions of all the men who were called upon to serve on a jury or did not have them all “tabbed” sufficiently to know whether or not they were Communists or, presumably, good Labour men, typified by the 34 honorable senators opposite, who would in no circumstances give a verdict in favour of the Crown in proceedings brought under this measure. The honorable senator’s suggestion that the Government should scan political opinions to that degree reveals a trend of thought that is quite contrary to the proper administration of justice. I need not argue those details because honorable senators opposite have stated that they are not to be persisted in, and that a general election that was offered to them must not be entered upon. Senator Grant, with flowing hair and flowing speech, has stated to-day that he will fight the Communists wherever he finds thom. The fact is that although honorable senators opposite have been painfully conscious of this scourge for years, one of their leaders has prated about the Communists being simply exponents of a political philosophy. Another, who was a member of a Labour Ministry, has said that the precepts of communism are simply teachings of Christ. On election platforms last December, Labour supporters said, “ We do not believe m dissolving the Communist party. We think that that is a wrong approach “. Yet to-day they are all backing down. They must stand convicted of having resorted to all this camouflage, delay and obstruction which has occurred, solely for the benefit of the Communists. Senator Grant, who is apparently in the “ know “. has referred with apprehension to industrial trouble looming up on the horizon. He has predicted that Communists will still be influential enough, either with or without his aid or resistance, to foment industrial trouble. We are soon to witness a vote of honorable senators who indulged in idle boasts and foolish words. They arc going to forget all that they have said about the liberty of the subject, and to vote for this bill, which they have stated is an iniquitous interference with individual freedom. I submit that never before has this chamber witnessed a more despicable incident than the somersault of the Opposition senators, whom we now look down upon.

Senator MORROW:
Tasmania

– Notwithstanding all of the epithets that have been hurled at the Opposition by

– I am not voting for it. I have not altered one iota. Honorable senators opposite get their “clap trap” from the newspapers; they do not think for themselves. I shall support democracy in its true sense. In my opinion certain clauses of the bill open the way to absolute persecution and are tyrannical and oppressive. Clause 9 reads -

– (1.) This section applies to any person - (a) who was, at any time after the specified date and before the date upon which the Australian Communist party is dissolved by this Act, a member or officer of the Australian Communist Party; or
1. who is, or was at any time after the specified date, a communist. (2.) Where the Governor-General is satisfied that a person is a person to whom this section applies and that that person is engaged, or is likely to engage, in activities prejudicial to the security and defence of the Commonwealth or to the execution or maintenance of the Constitution or of the laws of the Commonwealth, the Governor-General may, by instrument published in the Gazette, make a declaration accordingly.

I emphasize the words “ and that that person is engaged, or is likely to engage “ which appears in proposed subsection (2.). This savours of absolute’ persecution. How can any one know what is in another person’s mind? I contend; that that provision has been inserted in the measure solely for the purpose of persecution. The pimps will carry information to the gentlemen whose duty it will be to review it, and the person concerned will not even know what is taking place. If he is declared a notice will be published to that effect in the Commonwealth Gazette, and if he does not appeal within 28 days he will be branded. But not 2 per cent of the people of this country peruse the Gazette. The declaration will imply that the person declared is engaged, or is likely to engage, in activities prejudicial to the security and defence of Australia. Having been declared and branded as a traitor, a person must appeal to the court to try to have that stigma removed from his name. The point that legal members of the Government have continued to skip over is that a person will be charged, tried, and convicted without a hearing, and in fact without knowing it. A person would not know that he had been convicted unless he read the notice in the Gazette. Supporters of the Government claim that this is British justice ! Could there be any thing more tyrannical than such a proceeding? I assure the Senate that many people in this country deplore this provision. A lot of my friends have condemned it. Although honorable senators opposite may giggle, the friends to whom I have referred would be considered respectable people. Many of them are eminent in their respective callings. They are looked upon as people with great knowledge. In fact, many of them are engaged teaching our young people how to control the nation in the future. I assert that this bill is based upon persecution. Over 100 years ago Lord Macaulay stated -

To punish a man because he has committed a crime, is not persecution. To punish a man, because we infer from the nature of some doctrine which he holds, or from the conduct of other persons who hold the same doctrines with him, that he will commit a crime, is persecution, and is, in every case, foolish and wicked.

Professor Walter Murdoch, a respectable gentleman, who is considered to be an authority in these matters, was reported in the Melbourne Herald of the 24th June to have stated -

Not even Mr. Menzies, with all his eloquence, has succeeded or will succeed in converting me to the Communist faith. I have no doubt whatever that he has already converted some; and I feel certain that his little bill will help the Communist cause enormously . . . The Japanese, we know, had their way of dealing with political heretics, accusing them of ‘ dangerous thinking ‘. Under the present proposals, any one can bo accused of dangerous thinking, and called upon to prove that he doesn’t think dangerous thoughts . . . The idea of making the accused person prove his innocence, instead of making the accuser prove the truth of the accusation, is quite clearly repugnant to the British idea - which also happens to be the Australian idea - of justice, the idea which is the safeguard of freedom and the basis of democracy. We talk of subversive doctrines; surely if ever there was a subversive doctrine this is one. If ever there was dangerous thinking, this is dangerous thinking, dangerous to the democracy for which wo are striving. Speaking as a believer in democracy, I declare Mr. Menzies. You ask how I . . . would deal with the Communists. I would arrest them if they committed a crime. I would arrest them if they incited to violence. I would arrest them if they interfered with the defence of the country or betrayed state secrets to a foreign power.” For the rest, I would lot them alone. Damning and banning will only strengthen them in the long run.

The following statement that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 18th May was attributed to Professors Julius Stone, A. G. Mitchell, F. Cotton, W. M. O’Neill, and others-

We - ten professors and 23 readers and lecturers at the Sydney University - wish to make certain observations on the antiCommunist bill. In doing so we emphasize that none of us is associated with the Australian Communist Party … In particular ,the following provisions arc obnoxious to liberty . . . (1) The Governor-General . . can ‘ declare ‘ a person without giving that person an opportunity to be heard . . (2) It is quite unnecessary to the objectives of the bil] to extend the power of ‘ declaring ‘ persons, beyond persons who hold or have held office under the Commonwealth or in an industrial organization . . (3) The retrospective operation of the bill means that some people will lose their moans of livelihood because of activities which were perfectly lawful when they were carried out … (4) The drafting of section 7. - (1) Id), making ‘activities in the direct or indirect interest of an unlawful association ‘ a punishable offence is so wide and loose as to permit an absurd result.

The bill’s wide definition of a ‘ Communist ‘ combined with the burden-of-proof clauses, will provide a happy hunting-ground for malicious secret informers, a breed abhorrent to democracy.

Professor P. H. Partridge, Professor A. K. Stout, and 23 other professors, in a statement which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 22nd May last, also commented on this legislation. They are persons charged with the responsibility of educating the younger generation, and of moulding public opinion. This is what he said -

Like, the 33 signatories (above), we are wholly opposed to the aims and methods of the Communist party. We agree with their criticisms of the anti-Communist bill. But we must go further and protest against the bill as a whole . . .

The proper procedure in dealing with treasonable activities is to make overt acts or utterances illegal whoever commits them . . . It is impossible to define Communists so as not to involve others … A law of this type will act as a deterrent to free expression of opinion . . .

I have here another opinion, published over the names of Professor G. S. Brown, Professor R. D. Crawford, Professor R. D. Wright, who is a brother of Senator Wright, and a very eminent man, Professor E. E. Love and eight other professors of the University of Melbourne and two professors of the University of Sydney. This is what they say -

Neither Communists nor Communist sympathizers . . ., we, nevertheless, regard the anti-Communist bill as a dangerous and unwise method of opposing communism.

The bill departs from the fundamental democratic principles of constitutional and criminal law, in outlawing supporters of certain doctrines and associations rather than prosecuting definite actions directed against the State . . .

To ask what will happen when courts begin to inquire into these things is no idle question. This kind of investigation is happening daily in the United States, and seriously undermining the efficiency and security of public servants, and the freedom of academic teachers . . .

But . . . the main effect of the bill will be nut-side the courts. It may become the normal practice to interview applicants for any appointment, as to their political beliefs and associations … A sense of insecurity and fear may pervade all spheres of life . . .

My next quotation is from the Melbourne Argus, which no one can claim to bc sympathetic towards the Communist party. It is as follows: -

The legislation, if it goes through, will put us in a unique position on the extreme right of the English-speaking world …

There are two ways in which the destruction of communism may he attempted. The first is by ourselves becoming fellow-travellers of the fascists. The second is by making democracy work . . . the essential wrongness of the bill that public conscience which would certainly reject its controversial provisions if it were consulted . . .

I have here another quotation from a highly respectable sheet - in the eyes of honorable senators opposite - the Daily Mirror, of Sydney. In its issue of the 24th May it said -

Nothing was said during the elections that Menzies and his Government would proceed . . by methods similar to those used by the Gestapo . . . This newspaper will not support such methods of combating communism . . . The main horror of the bill is that … it takes from the citizen the right oi nial by jury, lt leaves a person answering charges levelled sit him from quarters of which he is ignorant; it makes smooth the path of a man’s private enemies or of public pimps; it brings into action paid informers; it makes possible espionage on the citizen . . .

There can be no quibbling about the principles involved in this issue. The onus of proof must be on the Crown, there must be trial by jury, and the usual avenues of appeal left open . . .

Here is a resolution passed by some friends of mine, the Amalgamated Postal Workers of Australia -

That .this union will oppose any action that may bo taken to interfere with the registered rules of an organization or depriving them of the right to elect officers by secret ballot of the financial membership in accordance with the rules as accepted and registered under th’e provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1004-11)48.

The next quotation, which is from a statement issued by the Federal and State Public Service Association, and Essential Services Council, of which Mr. E. G. Cook is president, is as follows: -

This Council upholds .the basic functions of trade unions, including professional and clerical officers’ associations, to . . . exercise the right to elect their own officers without outside interference. The Council condemns any legislation which would undermine these rights and threats to take away these rights . . .

A further quotation is from a statement issued by the religious society known as Friends, or Quakers, of Melbourne -

Our objection is to the hill as a whole, though we join in with many other organiza- tions in regarding the onus-of-proof clause as its most objectionable feature . . .

Democracy implies the right to make mistakes and to learn from them; the bill denies unionists this right and puts them into the position of children who cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. The bill can permit any militant unionist, whether or not he is an actual member of the Communist party, to be declared a Communist and incapable of holding office. But there were had strikes and militant union leaders before the Communist party: we suggest that banning this party does not necessarily ban serious industrial unrest rather we believe it may increase it . . .

– I would ban no minority. I would give the members of every minority the right to express themselves, no matter what political philosophy they hold. All my life I have fought for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to organize. To ban a person because one cannot meet him in argument is a confession of weakness. If I could not meet a person’s argument I should be prepared to say, “ All right, you win “. Let us now consider the various recitals in the preamble to the bill. The first is as follows: -

And Whereas the Australian Communist Party, in accordance with the basic theory of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin . . .

What is the theory of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin? In his works, Marx merely analysed the capitalist system, and pointed out where it must lead to. In fact, he predicted the very things that the Government is trying to do to-day. He said that capitalism, in its death struggle, would do everything it could to defeat democracy. The first recital continues -

. engages in activities or operations designed to assist or accelerate the coming of a revolutionary situation, in which the Australian Communist party, acting as a revolutionary minority, would be able to seize power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat:

Section 3 of the Crimes Act provides as follows : - (1.) The following are hereby declared to be unlawful associations, namely: -

Any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, which by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise advocates or encourages -
1. the overthrow of the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage;
2. the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of any other civilized country or of organized government; or
3. the destruction or injury of property of the Commonwealth or of property used in trade or commerce with other countries or among the States, or which is, or purports to be, affiliated with any organization which advocates or encourages any of the doctrines or practices specified in this paragraph;
1. Any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, which by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise advocates or encourages the doing of any act having or purporting to have as an object the carrying out of a seditious intention as defined in section tweuty-four a of this Act.

If the Communist party is guilty of what is charged against it, why has not the Government taken action under section 30 of the Crimes Act? The Government has not taken action because it has no proof. Under the Crimes Act, a conviction can be obtained only if the charge is proved. Under this proposed legislation no proof is required. The next paragraph of the preamble states -

And Whereas the Australian Communist Party also engages in activities or operations designed to bring about the overthrow or dislocation of the established system of government of Australia and the attainment of economic, industrial or political ends by force, violence, intimidation or fraudulent practices:

That paragraph is covered by section 30 (c) of the Crimes Act, which is as follows : -

Any person who by speech or writing advocates or encourages -

the overthrow of the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage ;

the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of any other civilized country or of organized government; or

the destruction or injury of property of the Commonwealth or of property used in trade or commerce with other countries or among the States, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for any period not exceeding two years, and in addition (if he was not born in Australia) to deportation by order of the Attorney-General as provided in this Act.

We come now to the next paragraph of the preamble, which reads -

And Whereas the Australian Communist Party is an integral part of the world Communist revolutionary movement, which, in the King’s dominions and elsewhere, engages in espionage and sabotage and in activities or operations of a treasonable or subversive nature and also engages in activities or operations similar to those, or having an object similar to the object of those, referred to in the last two preceding paragraphs of this preamble:

Section 30aa (1.) of the Crimes Act declares the following to be unlawful associations : -

Any body of persons incorporated or unincorporated, which by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise advocates or encourages the doing of any act having or purporting to have as an object the carrying out of a seditious intention as defined in section, twenty a of this Act.

The next recital in the bill provides -

And whereas activities or operations of, or encouraged by, the Australian Communist Party, and activities or operations of,, or encouraged by, members or officers of that party and other persons who are communists, are designed to cause; by means of- strikes or stoppages of work, and Iia ve, by those means, caused, dislocation, disruption, or retardation of production or work in these vital industries.

That is the main provision of this measure. Why is that? It is the main provision because the Government is preparing to protect the people who secured its election to this Parliament. I refer to the monopolies of this country. This bill is not a drive at the Communist party. It is a drive at the trade union movement of Australia. That movement has become so well organized, and the struggle so fierce, that honorable senators opposite are using the Parliament as a means of defending the exploiting class, and downing the workers.

Senator Wood:

– Why does the honorable senator chair Communist party meetings ?

Senator MORROW:

– Any man who says that I chair Communist party meetings is an unmitigated liar. If the honorable senator makes that claim, then he is a liar.. Not only members of the Communist party can be declared under this measure. The definition of the term “‘Communist” is so wide tha.t almost any member of the community could be declared. Few people do not believe in at least some of the teachings of Marx or Lenin. For instance, Marx advocates free education, the extension of electricity services, the prevention of soil erosion, and many other similar reforms. When this measure becomes law, any trade union that becomes a worry to the people who stand behind the present Government can be declared to be a Communist organization. The whole purpose of the bill is to disorganize the trade union movement. The Government’s fight against the Communists is a sham and a bluff, but the Government will not get away with it. The bill is not aimed at the 12,000 Communists, but at the trade union movement of this country. Honorable senators opposite talk about securing the co-operation of the Opposition. In effect, they are appealing to us to cooperate with them in their efforts to exploit the workers of this country.

Senator McCallum said that the Opposition was controlled by an outside junta. In 1935, that honorable senator, then a member of the Labour party, read a paper to the Summer School of Political Science in Melbourne, containing the following interesting passage: -

The pressure of large property-owners can he made manifest, if other methods fail, by the giving or withholding of party funds. The Hon. D. E. Hall has given convincing evidence, in his paper, of the enormously increased cost of elections since the Commonwealth began, and of the consequent dependence of candidates on party funds. Whence come those funds? Not, to any appreciable extent, from the small annual subscriptions of members of political leagues. They come from wealthy men whose wealth will be increased if certain policies are adopted, and diminished if certain other policies are pursued. “ Business is business “.

These are the people who talk about outside juntas! The paper goes on -

Is it feasible that business men put money into campaign funds at the prompting of unbusinesslike motives? I do not know the precise conditions on: which large donations are made to party funds. But does, any sane person believe that a Prime Minister calls into council the best aud wisest men he can. find, considers every conflicting interest in the Commonwealth with god-like detachment, lays down a policy, and that the money that is to pay for radio, press, platform, and election transport thereupon drops like manna from a heaven inhabited solely by public-spirited, wealthy archangels ?

Senator McCallum went on further to say ;

Many honest poor people support the U.A.P., as they supported its Conservative predecessors, and will support its successors, because they think it stands for great traditions and for sound government.

But behind them stand the great propertied interests of the country. It cannot be contended ‘seriously that, at the present moment, any great group of business interests would oppose the U.A.P. Party. The manufacturers have had a fleeting alliance with Labour. Certain other special ‘business interests, such a.s’ the brewers, and a few buccaneer entrepreneurs, have shown favour to. Labour. But

Mie importers, the wholesale traders, the great retail business men, the manufacturers, the private banks and the insurance companies stand solidly as the economic foundation of the Conservative core in the U.A.P.

We need pay little attention to the U.A.P. political machine. Unlike the Labour machine, it is not intended to be an instrument of government. It is a weapon to win elections. There are leagues, conferences, platforms, and so on; but the political leaders disregard these at will. If there is an outside body controlling, or even seriously influencing, U.A.P. policy, it is neither the elected Executive, nor the enrolled members of the party.

I believe there is an outside influence, which applies continuous pressure to the political leaders of the United Australia Party. The existence of a body called the Consultative Council in Sydney, and of similar bodies in other capitals, may or may not be evidence. Even if the Consultative Council were a coterie of philanthropists, interested in nothing but the welfare of their less fortunate brethren, no serious student of politics could doubt that the interests of large-scale businesses are placed before U.A.P. party leaders expressly with the intention of influencing policy. And the views thus presented, so quietly yet so persuasively, represent the interest primarily of the great property -owners as distinct from the interests of small property-owners and of wage-earners. It is true that these three different sets of interests sometimes coincide; it is equally true that sometimes they do not.

The United Australia Party was, of course, the forerunner of the Liberal party, .and yet honorable senators opposite talk about outside juntas! In that paper, Senator McCallum revealed just what goes on inside the Liberal party, and who controls it. Obviously, it is controlled by property owners and big financiers.

Senator Vincent said that this bill was a defence measure. For once. I agree with him; but, what is it a defence against ? It is not for the defence of this country; it is for the defence of those members of the community who secured the election of the present Government. The bill is an endeavour to draw the teeth of the trade unions, so that the workers may be rendered defenceless. The bill is a part of a plan that has been already laid down. Even now, there is a claim before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for increased working hours and a reduction of wages. Those claims have been lodged by the people whom this bill seeks to defend.

My attitude towards this bill has not changed in the slightest. I am still a true democrat. I am still tolerant. I still believe in giving to minorities the right to express themselves, .and to organize, provided, as I have said, that they do not break the law.

Senator Guy:

– The honorable senator will vote against the bill?

Senator MORROW:

– I will not vote for it. It is a putrid measure that smells in the nostrils of all decent people. Having applied that description to it, I certainly shall not vote for it. We have seen measures like this before. Senator Grant told us about some of them. I shall cite other examples. A measure similar to this was introduced in Ireland many years ago, and what happened there? The people who introduced it were annihilated. The czars introduced similar measures. Their fate is a matter of history. Mussolini introduced similar legislation, and what happened to him? He was hanged in a most undignified position alongside his mistress. Hitler, too, another sponsor of totalitarian legislation, met a violent death. His anti-Communist bill was followed, in a matter of a few weeks, by an antisocialist bill, by means of which the German equivalent of the Labour party was suppressed. Finally, Hitler was afraid to face the music, and shot himself. His Japanese counterpart, Tojo, was hanged by the Allies as a war criminal. Chiang Kai-shek is hopping from island to island, keeping just one jump ahead of the democratic Chinese. Almost every politician who has acted in the way this Government is acting to-day has ultimately become the victim of those whom he sought to suppress. I fear that the same may happen in this country. This bill is tyrannical, oppressive, and reeks of persecution. It will not accomplish what the Government expects of it. Australians will not stand for legislation of this kind. If the Government believes that it can increase production by placing this measure on the statute-book, it is making a great mistake. We should thank it for having introduced the bill which will awaken the people to a realization of the forces that are behind the Government. A bill of this kind should never have been introduced in any legislature in this country.

Debate (on motion by Senator Spooner) adjourned.

page 846

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1950 [No. 2]

Second Beading.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This very important measure deals with the reconstruction of the Commonwealth Bank, it provides for the repeal of an act under which it was proposed that banking should be nationalized, and it deals with the reconstruction of the Commonwealth Bank Board. Although it is of great importance, I do not think honorable senators will regard me as discourteous if I do not speak at great length on the motion for its second reading. I do not intend to do so because when a bill in identically similar terms was previously before the Senate the second-reading debate on it was extremely lengthy. The original bill was also exhaustively considered at the committee stage. There should be general agreement with my view that the extent to which the original of this bill was previously debated leaves little room for any new thoughts on the subject.

The bill now before the Senate contains three proposals: first, the repeal of the Banking Act 1947, which aimed at nationalization of banking; secondly, the provision of additional capital for the trading sections of the Commonwealth Bank; and, thirdly, the reconstitution of the Commonwealth Bank Board. The arguments on the original bill turned largely on the nature and constitution of the Commonwealth Bank Board. The Opposition view was that the board should be composed of permanent officials with direct responsibility to the Treasurer. The Government took the view that the board should consist partly of permanent officials and partly of men with outside experience. The Government decided that a formula should be provided whereunder, in the event of disagreement between the directors of the bank and the Treasurer, the matters in dispute should be ventilated in the Commonwealth Parliament. I do not propose to re-traverse that field of argument. If it is necessary for me to do so, I shall do so in my reply to the second-reading debate. As a bill in identical terms was passed through this Senate in a few minutes some days ago, this bill will, I hope, also be expediously dealt with and that there will be no need for me to make a lengthy speech in reply to the secondreading debate.

This bill represents a portion of the Government’s well-balanced financial programme. In effect, it provides that the broad structure of the Commonwealth Bank shall remain unchanged but that the bank will be strengthened in . all its various departments. It provides that there shall be collective responsibility for the determination of policy. That objective will be achieved by the reestablishment of a board consisting of men with wide knowledge and experience, who will ensure the integration of the economic and financial policy of the bank with the economic and financial policy of the nation without impairing the independence of the bank. That policy will . be determined by the board, but the day-to-day administration of the bank will continue to be left in the hands of the Governor of the bank. The bill recognizee the principle that ultimate responsibility for the monetary and banking policy of the nation lies with the Parliament and at the same time it preserves the effective working relationship between the Government and the bank. Under the bill provision is made for additional capital for the trading sections of the bank, thu3 enabling them to continue to offer to the community services which are used to develop the Australian economy. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Ashley) adjourned.

page 846

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator MATTNER:
‘South Australia

– In 1946, the people of Australia sent eighteen senators into this chamber and charged them with the duty of sharing in the Government of this country. In 1949, they again sent 42 senators into this chamber and charged them with a similar duty, directing them to apply themselves to their tasks, to make their own decisions, and to be prepared to honour their obligations. In travelling around the country I have observed that one of the things that is worrying the people to-day is the fact that in some instances the conduct of the business of the Parliament is dictated, not by the elected representatives of the people, but by a body which has no allegiance to the electors of Australia. That fact was exemplified by the decision made by the federal executive of the Australian Labour party on Monday last in relation to Labour’s attitude to this bill. To-day we hear about the great Australian Labour party. Earlier it was known as the Australian Labour party. The new title is & clear indication of the split that has recently riven the party. The claim that only trade unionists have the right to decide the policy of the great Australian Labour party is a very different story from what we have previously been told in this chamber. An analysis of the voting figures at the last general election reveals that the number of voters who cast their votes in favour of candidates of the Australian Labour party was very much in excess of the total number of trade unionists in this country. The party now has little or no concern for the great mass of the people who supported its candidates at the last general election, and naturally many people do not know where they stand. History tells us that on one occasion a cock crowed three times before a great betrayal, and history has a strange habit of repeating itself. Yesterday, twelve men betrayed a great political movement. For months honorable senators opposite have crowed, saying that this bill would not be allowed to pass. The average Australlian respects a person who fights cleanly, irrespective of whether he agrees with him or not. A great mass of the people of Australia will look on the Labour party’s most recent betrayal as one of the greatest acts of cowardice that has ever been perpetrated by a political party. Opposition senators have accused tiri 3 Government of cowardice. I fling the lie back into their teeth. If the Government were as bad as honorable senators opposite would have the people believe, and if it were not worthy to govern them, the remedy lay in the hands of the Opposition. If Opposition senators had had the courage to vote, against this bill, they would have had an opportunity to face their masters without delay. They did not have the courage of their convictions. After all the vain talk and the sham-fighting, the Opposition senators hide behind a decision that other men have made. Yet they claim to be democratic. Could hypocrisy or cowardice go further? There are many men in the ranks of the Australian Labour party who are sore and many who consider it a grievous thing that they are not allowed to fight on against this bill. The members of the public know that the Labour party is not happy about the attitude it has taken. If they say we are not happy about it, they could have put us out of our misery long ago had they desired to do so.

Senator Aylett:

– We prefer to let the Government stew in its misery for a little longer.

Senator MATTNER:

– The Labour party preferred to take the easy way out. The only conclusion to which I can come is that the members of the Labour party in this chamber desire to shed their mantle of protection over the Communist party. The suppression of the Communist party is a, matter of vital concern to the people and they gave their decision on it on the 10th December last. It is remarkable that honorable senators who talk so much about their great love for democracy should, when the people give a decision contrary to their views, say that the people cannot be trusted and that they have not the brains to form a judgment for themselves. How often have we heard that statement reiterated in this Parliament by honorable senators opposite! The fact is that they are not prepared to accept the people’s judgment, whatever it may be. We hear a great deal about these champions of the workers, but I have never yet known one of them to die of overwork.

Honorable senators opposite have said that this bill represents an infringement of British justice. There is nothing wrong with British justice, and this measure does not depart from its old established principles. Something has also been said about the bill bearing no analogy to any other law of this land. The words that I now read appear in the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949, section 11 -

Where an organization has committed an offence against this Act, every person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was a member of the committee of management, or an officer, of the organization or of a branch of the organization shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he used all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, and shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a fine not exceeding One hundred pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

That legislation was put on the statutehook, not by the Liberal party or the Australian Country party, but by the Chifley Government.

Senator Ashley:

– That provision has since been removed.

Senator MATTNER:

– A remarkable fact which I cannot quite reconcile is that some months ago there were introduced into this chamber many amendments to this bill. Why hus the Australian Labour party dropped its amendments overboard ? The public will require to know the answer to that question. Much discussion has also ensued concerning the onus of proof provisions of the bill, but I have never yet discovered that an innocent man has anything to fear. If I believed the bill in any way infringed British justice I would be one of the first to oppose it, but there is nothing in it that interferes with British law and justice. If a man is not guilty of any of the offences which might be alleged against him, he has merely to go into the box and say he is not guilty. The Crown then has to prove its case, and no judge of the Supreme Court or High Court would convict a man unless the evidence were produced to convict him.

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator is misrepresenting the facts.

Senator MATTNER:

– That is a correct statement of the facts, and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) knows it is correct. [Quorum formed.’] After all the shadow-sparring and the great travail of the past few months we can at least now see some motive behind the actions of the Opposi tion. I sum up the position by saying that the Opposition is unwilling to accept the will of the people which was made known last December. It wishes to bring down the Menzies Government, and although it had the opportunity to do that, it shirked the issue. If the Menzies Government is brought down it will mean chaos and disaster for every one in Australia. This Government stands for prosperity, peace and good government for all, but prosperity for all would be a genuine grief to the Australian Labour party. Because honorable senators opposite know that that aim will be attained, in an effort to cause chaos they oppose this bill. At least, I suppose honorable senators opposite will oppose it. They said they would.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– We are now reaching the final stages of what is, in my opinion, one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced into this Parliament. Both here and in the House of Representatives thousands of words have been uttered for it and against it. The Labour Opposition in the Senate has made known to Australia and to the rest of the world its opinion of this bill. It has fought the measure tooth and claw, but it has now reached the stage where, on further examination, it has been decided that a tactical move shall be made. Whilst acknowledging our loyalty to our party, to the Parliament, and to the people, we have decided that it would be in the interests of the Australian Labour party temporarily to let the Government have the bill, to put ii. into operation and see what occurs in the future. Members of the Australian Labour Party have been chided about their loyalty to the people. The party owes a great loyalty to the people of Australia and that loyalty has been exemplified on many occasions, right from the inception of the party. It has had to take a. realistic view on many occasions, as was instanced during the term of the Scullin Government and, at the present time, by this decision on the recommendation of its federal executive. The members of the Australian Labour party are loyal to that executive, whether they believe it has acted correctly or not. They are also loyal to their leaders and to the Parliament. They have attended this Parliament and have presented, when required by the people, the greatest opposition to this bill that they could muster.

In this chamber we have heard many great speeches while this bill has been under discussion. We have heard, too, the iniquitous clauses denounced one by one. Prior to the decision of the federal executive, the Opposition insisted on the amendment of clauses 5 and 9, dealing with declared organizations and individuals respectively, in order to ensure that the onus of proof should rest on the Crown. Those clauses were fought in the name of the law and of decency. The Opposition also insisted that declared individuals and organizations should be given the right to be tried by a jury. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber presented the finest legal and moral arguments against the bill bf which they were capable. They declared that the legislation should provide that an individual who was successful in having the declaration set aside should be entitled to Costs and such compensation as the court deemed fitting in the circumstances. They considered all those things of major importance to the community. Because the Australian Labour party has now decided, as a tactical move, temporarily to forego its insistence on its amendments to the proposed legislation, there have been comments from the Government benches about discipline and leadership. I believe in discipline and leadership, even though I may not always agree with my leaders, because as a subordinate I consider it is a right and a duty to follow my elected leaders. I do not like discipline, because I have a free and independent mind, but I have subjected myself to the discipline that the great Australian Labour party demands of each of its members. I accept the decisions that are made, irrespective of whether I agree with them. That is discipline. In the same way, I accepted discipline in the military forces. I was under an obligation to the Army, and I accepted the discipline that i+ imposed upon me. On many occasions I considered that decisions were wrong and leadership faulty, but I obeyed. I accepted the decisions that were made. In accepting this decision of our executive, I hold the view that it will eventually be for the benefit of all. We shall see very shortly what happens when the Government attempts to put this legislation into operation.

The word “ democracy “ is often used in this Parliament by members of the Government parties, but I have not yet seen a practical example of democracy by this Government. We have been told that the principle of democracy is the rule of the majority and the greatest good for the greatest number. We have seen various kinds of democracy in operation. There is the American system of capitalistic democracy and the British system. Great Britain has refused to have anything to do with a bill of this kind. It is pulling itself up by its shoestrings economically, physically, socially and morally. Doubtless it will rise again and set an example to the world. Let us consider the party system of government that is in operation in Australia now. One great political party, the Australian Labour party, is, unfortunately, in opposition in this Parliament. The Government consists of a coalition of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party, which are joined together in an uneasy marriage of convenience. In relation to the revaluation of our currency, a minority in the Government is imposing its will upon the majority. The Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), who is also the Leader of the Australian Country party, has said that the Australian £1 will be appreciated only over his dead body.

The Government will get its bill, and we shall see what happens then. We shall soon know whether this measure will be the answer to all our troubles. I have no time for Communists, and I have fought them wherever I have found them. I believe that the noisy nuisances in Australia are not the real Communists, and that there must be a great directing force behind them. The Government has named only Communists who are militant trade unionists. It has not named Communists in the legal and medical professions. Those militant trade unionists were elected to their positions by , a majority of the members of their unions. They were elected, not by accident but because of their ability and the force of their personality. They were elected because they were efficient. The history of the Australian trade union movement shows that at one time many of our great trade unions were disorganized and stagnating because those who ran them were inefficient and lazy. They were superceded by strong, virile and active men. Admittedly, they were Communists, but they were elected not because they were Communists but because they were efficient. I am a practical trade unionist, f have lived in fo’c’sles of ships with Communists, and I know a little about what communism is and what its effects are. It has applied the spur to some lazy members of our movement, but I shall fight the Communists because I believe that they are disloyal and dishonest, although I realize that a great number of trade unionists follow the Browns, Healeys and Elliotts, because those men secured many advantages for them. Senator Kendall is an. ex-seaman. He knows that the seamen fought for and secured improved working conditions and safety precautions. For example, ships’ lifeboats are now better designed and more adequately equipped than they were previously. On one occasion my discharge was taken from me because I was guilty of the simple act of smoking in a shed on a wharf. Many others did that, but I was an able boy and they did not like me very much because I was outspoken. Vow I have grown out of those things. My vision has widened. I have a better knowledge of men and world affairs than I had then. I am convinced that this bill will not kill communism. I do not like communism and I hate Communists, but r believe that communism in Australia is not real communism. If the Australian Communists were real Communists, they would follow the example of the Russian Communists and get on with the job of increasing the productivity of the State, “bich is something that the Russians insist upon. The Australian Communists believe that they are following the Communist line, but they are not doing so. T do not know whether they themselves really know what line they are following, because if they had any conception of the real background of communism, which is the development of the State, they would do something about developing the mag- nificent resources that we have in Australia.

We have heard a lot about loyalty and the oath taken by senators. Senator McCallum referred to the oath that we on this side of the chamber took when we entered the Senate, and said that we had not honoured our responsibilities as members of the Parliament. I am pleased and privileged to be here to-day and able to do my humble bit in the interests of this country and the people who sent me here. 1 am loyal to them. When I became a senator, I swore that I would be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George VI., his heirs and successors according to law. When I took that oath, I was sincere, and I still am, as is every other honorable senator on this side of the chamber. I have nothing to do with outside juntas or anything like that. I am loyal to the Parliament. I am regular in my attendance in this chamber. I observe its rules and respect its traditions. I have never been thrown out. I have always obeyed the umpire and have never been ordered off the field for a breach of the rules. I consider myself, in my own humble way, to be as loyal as is anybody else. There are many persons in this country who have conscientious objections to taking an oath, and some of them fought and died in the forces in the last war. It is not the jelly-bellied flag flappers who are the great patriots of this country, but the practical men who get on with the joh and do things in their own quiet way. The cumulative effect of their efforts means a. great deal in our community life.

I speak from experience when I say that the task of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and the security service will not be an enviable one. They will encounter all kinds of difficulties and will have to accept many responsibilities. They will have to give decisions in complicated cases. I urge the Attorney- ‘ General to ensure that the men selected for this job will have some basic training and know what they are required to do. If they do not have the necessary experience, much hardship will be caused and there will be unnecessary dislocation of industry. To do the job properly, we shall have to utilize the services of some of the most tolerant, able and experienced men, not only in the legal profession but also in the industrial sphere. During the last war, the military forces tried hard to control communism, and they had some very able men working for them, but they made many mistakes. On some occasions industry was on the point of dislocation, but, fortunately, the services sought the co-operation of men who had a knowledge of industry, of psychology and of trade union leaders. That co-operation was given wholeheartedly. We all know of the great production which we achieved during the war and of the help that the government of the day received from trade union leaders then. We are now passing through a period in which conditions are almost akin to war conditions, and we shall need the cooperation of everybody to overcome our difficulties. We are very short of bodies - hands, feet, minds and energy. If we pull a man out of industry by acting upon some supposition or accepting some tale, we shall decrease our production. 1 cannot see how production would be automatically increased by removing a man from the leadership of a trade union. In many instances, it is better to have the devil we know than the devil we do not know. If we drive those devils underground, we may cause a lot of trouble.

As Senator Wright has said, the die is cast. It is obvious from the sad faces of honorable senators opposite that they are dismayed at the difficulties and dangers to which this bill will give rise. More venom has been injected into the debate that has taken place to-day than was injected into previous debates on this bill, and I believe that honorable senators opposite are chagrined and angry because they realize that, tactically, they have been outwitted. They know that the Government must now do the things that it said it could do, and they are worried. I should be worried if I were in their place.

Senator Wright indulged in an extraordinary outburst against Senator McKenna. It was a case of abuse versus logic. I ascribe Senator Wright’s outburst to legal jealousy. Senator McKenna presented a reasoned argument, but Senator Wright indulged in a condemnation of a man’s personal view that he should accept the decision of the majority - a decision that will be confirmed by our party at a later date.

A great deal has been said about what happens outside the Parliamentary Labour party and reference has been made to the Federal and State executives of the party. I shall direct the attention of the Senate to what has happened outside the Parliament in relation to the Liberal party. According to a report published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 28th March, 1950, a motion criticizing the Commonwealth Bank Bill that is now before the Parliament was narrowly defeated at a meeting of the New South Wales State Council of the Liberal party held on the 27th March. One of the members of the council condemned Dr. Coombs as a product of the London School of Economics, which he described as one of the most vile training grounds in the British Empire. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) rallied to the defence of Dr. Coombs. Addressing this outside body, which is similar to the body that he criticized us for having listened to, he said -

If the Council debates this ill-informed motion, it will not be doing the right thing by the Liberal party of Australia. The bill is before Parliament and has been approved by the Liberal and Country parties. We have introduced it because it is in the interests of the Australian people. Mr. Jago’s attack on Dr. Coombs is a direct reflection on our own parliamentary leader, who made statements that Dr. Coombs would be made Governor of the bank.

A delegate to the conference then said -

This debate is such dynamite that it should be dropped so that our Cabinet friends will not be embarrassed.

That is an example of what happens in an outside organization connected with the Liberal party.

Let me turn to the Australian Country party. The newspaper article that I am about to read relates to the incident when the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Charles Russell) walked out of the Australian Country party room. It reads as follows: -

page 851

MR. FADDEN CHIDES RELUCTANT FOLLOWER

” Whatever may be Mr. C. Russell’s personal views on revaluation, he has an absolute obligation, both to this party and to the people who elected him for Maranoa, to be at his post of duty at Canberra when vital legislation is before Parliament.”

That was a directive which came from an outside body, and at an outside place, in the same way as the direction that came to the Opposition, which honorable senators opposite have criticized during their attacks to-night. The following paragraph also appeared in the newspaper article : -

Mr. Fadden said Mr. Russell had left Canberra without advising hmself, as leader, and without having arranged with the Whip for a pair at the time when the Banking Bill’s final stages were being debated, and voted on by Parliament.

Senator SCOTT:

– I suspect that honorable senators opposite will crawl back so far into their shells that they will imagine that they are perfectly safe.’ However, they may be assured that, should they again seek fight, the Government will have an appropriate answer ready for them.

Debate interrupted.

page 853

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 854

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Civil Aviation - R. E. Gillman. Supply - D. G. Collingwood.

Nauru - ‘

Orders - 1948 - No. 1 - Judiciary Ordinance - Rules of Court (Admission of Barristers and Solicitors). 1949 - No. 1 - Quarantine (Animals) Regulations.

Ordinances - 1948 - No. 2 - Judiciary.

1949-

No. 1- Oaths.

No. . 2 - Marriages.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 October 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19501017_senate_19_209/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate17 October 1950

QUESTION

APPLES

Senator MURRAY:TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator ROBERTSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

CHILD WELFARE

Senator ROBERTSON:

Senator COOPER:CP

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator SPOONER:Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

KOREA

Senator ARMSTRONG:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION

Senator WRIGHT:TASMANIA

Senator Fraser:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator WRIGHT:

QUESTION

DOLLAR DEFICITS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator WRIGHT:

Senator COOPER:CP

Senator AYLETT:TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator BENN:QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SPOONER:LP

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

The PRESIDENT:

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Senator McKENNA:Tasmania

Senator O’Sullivan:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Mattner:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Robertson:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator SPICER:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator McKENNA:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Hendrickson:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Hendrickson:

Senator Robertson:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Robertson:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Hendrickson:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Wright:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Wright:

Senator McKENNA:

Senator Spicer:

Senate
17 October 1950

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales