House of Representatives
17 November 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1960

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2957

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the unanimous rejection by the House last night of a Government motion - a defeat so overwhelming as to be unprecedented in federal history - is the Government considering its position? Can an enraged Australian nation have any hope that the Prime Minister will tender the appropriate advice to the GovernorGeneral?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable member may rely on me to tender the appropriate advice to the Governor-General at all times.

page 2957

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Will he tell the House the position of employment in the motor vehicle industry and also say whether there is any real danger of substantial unemployment developing?

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think the House will be aware that the motor vehicle industry as a whole is over-extended. I can state to the honorable gentleman that there are about 50,000 jobs vacant throughout industry. In other words, some 50,000 jobs cannot be filled. I have not precise figures but there are about 1,000 vacancies for motor mechanics and at least 400 for panel beaters. So I think we are entitled to say that a considerable amount of excess demand would have to be wiped off before any difficulties about employment in the motor vehicle industry could be thought of. As to industry in general, I think it ought to be known that we are suffering from overfull employment. The action taken by the Government is intended to correct the position, but a person would take a very great risk if he were to say that we could actually foretell the date on which overfull employment would be reduced.

page 2957

QUESTION

ARMY CAMP, PUCKAPUNYAL

Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Army whether it is a fact that Army re-organization in recent months has meant a drop of approximately 30 per cent, in the personnel at the Puckapunyal military camp. Is it his intention to reduce the numbers further by transferring the unit of the Royal Australian Army Service Corps to New South Wales? Is the Government aware that the economy of the Seymour township is, and has been for more than a quarter of a century, entirely dependent upon the continued presence of a strong Army group? If further transfers are projected, will the Minister, in view of the huge losses looming for Seymour businessmen and the loss of employment for Seymour workers, re-examine the position with a view to saving Seymour from becoming virtually a ghost town?

Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honorable member will appreciate, as will the House, that we are in the midst of a very big reorganization of the Army. This will, of course, affect certain units in Seymour and Puckapunyal, but I do not think the honorable member has any cause to fear that it will have the effect that he mentioned. There will be some reductions in certain cases, but I would not take the gloomy view that he takes with respect to the future of Seymour, because Puckapunyal will remain a very important camp in the Army organization.

page 2957

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Will the Treasurer make investigations with a view to a reduction of Government spending in line with the general reduction in spending considered necessary in the present condition of the economy?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is not so very long ago that this House had the opportunity of thoroughly examining the details of proposed Government expenditure for this year. As I pointed out at that time, not only had the rate of increase slowed down this year, in comparison with last year and earlier years, but an analysis of the increase showed that when the grants to the States, the increase in social services attributable to the growth in population, the improvements in social services granted in the last Budget and a few other matters of that sort were taken into account, there was not very much scope for a reduction without seriously hampering the essential activities of the Government.

Most of the time, our critics are concerned not so much with telling us of specific ways in which expenditure can be reduced as with urging increased expenditure upon us. I would welcome, rather than some generalization of that kind, a specific intimation of where, in the view of the critics, expenditure could be reduced. Then this House would be in a better position to decide whether it should follow that advice.

page 2958

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Fleet Air Arm

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Defence. Last November, the honorable gentleman announced that the Flee! Air Arm would not be re-equipped when the present aircraft reached the end of their operational usefulness in 1963, and that H.M.A.S. “Melbourne” would then be put in mothballs. I think his colleague has announced recently that, subject to a firm price being obtained for a suitable anti-submarine helicopter, H.M.A.S. “ Melbourne “ will continue in commission after 1963 as a carrier for such helicopters. I now ask the honorable gentleman: What is the reason for this reversal of policy and what is the nature of any consequential alterations, particularly in regard to antisubmarine equipment?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– I think this question should have been put on the notice-paper. It is quite true that a decision was taken not to re-equip the Fleet Air Arm with fixed wing aircraft, because the new, modern aircraft could not be flown successfully off “ Melbourne “. Since then, there have been very big developments in antisubmarine helicopters, and it has been decided to keep the ship in commission with anti-submarine helicopters of the Whirlwind 10 type, or something of that sort. The ship has at least another ten years of effective life in her hull and her machinery, and it is thought that she will be a very valuable adjunct to the fleet in future.

page 2958

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– T address a question to the Postmaster-General. Are rural automatic exchanges manufactured entirely in Aus tralia? Can the honorable gentleman tell me whether the supply of these exchanges to the various country districts is behind schedule or up to date?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The R.A.X. units have been manufactured in Australia for a considerable time. The honorable member for Robertson asks me whether the supply is up to schedule. In order to answer that question properly, I have to explain that there has been something in the nature of a change in the policy by the department in connexion with the provision of automatic services in country areas. We are moving away to a certain extent - not completely - from the smaller exchanges. We are developing large automatic country exchanges rather than installing a greater number of the smaller R.A.X. units. The rural automatic exchange units are still being manufactured and installed, but our policy, in addition to putting, in the accepted type of rural automatic exchange, is to instal larger country automatic exchanges. So the comparison of the installation of rural automatic exchanges during this year with the installations about two years ago would not give a complete picture, unless I also pointed out that the installation of country automatic exchanges has increased very considerably. There will be a slight reduction in the actual number of rural automatic exchanges put in this year, in comparison with the number installed in previous years. On the other hand there will be a considerable increase in the number of automatic lines provided for country services. There will be an increase this year of about 4,000, at least, over the installations of last year.

page 2958

QUESTION

MOTOR CAR FACTORY, BROADMEADOWS

Mr POLLARD:
LALOR, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that some months ago the right honorable gentleman opened Ford’s new £11,500,000 motor car factory at Broadmeadows and, in the course of a speech to which I listened with rapt attention, expressed great gratification at this vast expansion and considered it amply justified? Is he aware that under the new policy enunciated on Tuesday that factory and enterprise will become substantially depressed and that the positions of hundreds of employees, both male and female, in the surrounding districts of Broadmeadows, Glenroy, Fawkner and Campbellfield will be endangered? In fact, some of them are almost certain to go. As the Prime Minister justified and blessed this expansion of industry, what action does he propose to take in order to ensure that some compensating advantage is given to those whose jobs are endangered?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I partly share the honorable member’s memory, but I do not at all share his gloom.

page 2959

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Fleet Air Arm

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence, and is supplementary to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the future of the Fleet Air Arm. Under the Standing Orders, in order to elucidate that question and answer, I ask the Minister what is. the future of the Royal Australian Naval Air Station at Nowra. When these changes are being made, will that establishment be kept going, because its future is causing concern to those-

Mr Pollard:

– It is like your future, very thin.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr JEFF BATE:

– It might be longer than, that of the honorable member, anyway. Will that establishment be kept going, because its future is giving concern to people, local government and otherwise, who have been providing services for the naval air station?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– It is envisaged that the training for the helicopter role of the Fleet Air Arm will still be carried out at Nowra. There is also a move to integrate the apprentices training schools for the Navy and Army at Nowra.

page 2959

QUESTION

APPRENTICES;

Mr COURTNAY:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Can he inform the House of the extent to which the Commonwealth may employ apprentices and the actual number employed at this stage? Can we be assured that the Commonwealth will play its maximum part in the training of new skilled workers?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have given this problem some thought in the course of the last few months, but I regret to have to inform the honorable gentleman that I cannot answer the three questions that he has asked me. My memory does not go back quite that far. We are taking an increasing interest in the employment of apprentices in the industrial trades. I will get the papers relevant to what we intend to do and if I can give the honorable gentleman suitable extracts I will be only too happy to do so.

page 2959

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr HAMILTON:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to you, Mr. Speaker. Will you take the opportunity to examine the last sentence that commences on page 2904 of yesterday’s “ Hansard “? The words of which 1 complain were spoken by the honorable member for Kingston. After reading the sentence in question, will you advise the House what action, if any, can be taken to protect the reputation of members of this Parliament? The words to which I object are these -

It is shameful that privileged men in the community - supporters of the Government including members of this Parliament - discredited themselves and’ the Parliament by using their prior knowledge of the Government’s proposals to benefit themselves by purchasing motor cars in the last couple of days.

Mr SPEAKER:

– While 1 am prepared to consider the matter that has been raised by the honorable member, the Chair is not obliged to interfere with an honorable member who, within the Standing Orders, expresses himself as he thinks fit.

page 2959

QUESTION

CANBERRA LAKES SCHEME

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question to the Treasurer is supplementary to the question which was asked of him by the honorable member for Mallee in. relation to specific ways in which Government expenditure could be eliminated. Does the right honorable gentleman not consider expenditure on the lakes scheme in Canberra to be highly inflationary? Could this expenditure be suspended until a more favorable time?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I suppose it could be said that, in one sense, the creation of the lakes in Canberra will add to local liquidity, but perhaps that is not what the honorable member has in mind. Speaking seriously, I think that very few members of this House would not support the steady programme of development which is being carried out in our national capital by the National Capital Development Commission. Very few true Australians with any sense of national greatness would not wish to see, at the heart of the nation, a city worthy not only of the Australia of to-day but also of the Australia of the future.

Some of us have seen the great national capital of the United States of America. If the earlier generations of Americans had been deterred by the difficulties which arose from time to time from going steadily ahead with the development of Washington, there would have been a very different capital in the United States from the beautiful city which is there now.

I commend to the honorable gentleman’s attention the attitude of mind of the people of Austria after the war. Vienna had been bombed very heavily, and one of the great features of life in that country - the opera house - had been destroyed. Long before the people of Austria built homes and industrial undertakings, they rebuilt the Vienna Opera House as representing the spirit of the Austrian people.

Each country has its own attitudes and sentiments. A man does not live by bread alone. I should hope that we, as fellow Australians, would ensure that our National Capital was so developed as to be worthy of a great people and a great country.

page 2960

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr FAIRHALL:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. In view of the fact that although licences have been awarded for country television stations, no steps can be taken towards the provision of services until the frequencies to be used have been determined, and on that will depend the locations of stations, can the Radio Frequency Allocation Review Committee consider the availability of television channels before considering its general recommendations on the whole frequency spectrum? When does the PostmasterGeneral expect the committee to put recommendations on this matter in his hands?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– As I stated a little while ago, the availability of frequencies, in addition to being considered by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, was referred by me to the frequency review committee which has been set up and which has been meeting over the last couple of months or so. The honorable member for Paterson asks me when 1 expect to have the report of the review committee on frequencies. I shall be in Melbourne to-morrow, Sir, and I expect to see not only departmental officials but also the representatives of this committee. My present information, which is not formal, is that the report and recommendations will be available to me very shortly.

page 2960

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLES OVERSEAS

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, who is reported to have recently made, at a function in Melbourne, an impassioned plea for freedom - a sentiment of which I strongly approve. He appealed particularly for assistance to the people of Central Europe. Why is the right honorable gentleman so forthright in appealing for freedom for the people of Central Europe, where his appeal can have very little apparent effect, when he was so cautious and silent in reference to the people of South Africa, in whose case an appeal from him could probably have been effective?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This seems to me, Sir, to be in the nature of an argument, and I did not understand that we were conducting a debate now. If this were a debate J could give the honorable gentleman half an hour, in which case I could make a few pungent observations.

page 2960

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Mr CASH:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Treasurer: Is the right honorable gentleman able to state by what amount the lifting of the ban on the export of iron ore would improve Australia’s export income position?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The ban on the export of iron ore has existed for many years, and any review of that long-standing decision would be a matter of Government policy with which it would not be appropriate to deal here. I think that the honorable gentleman will appreciate that for a variety of reasons it would be very difficult to make any estimate of the kind that he asks. The financial outcome of removing the ban would depend on the availability of deposits, grades of ore, the demands or requirements from purchasers, and so on. Any estimate, therefore, could only be of a highly tentative character. I regret that I am not in possession of the information necessary to make an estimate.’

page 2961

QUESTION

CANBERRA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– My question, which is to the Minister for Health, refers to his announcement that weekly charges at the Canberra Community Hospital will shortly be increased to £15 8s. for public ward patients, £24 17s. for intermediate ward patients and £33 5s. for private ward patients. I ask the Minister: Can he state the reasons for the imposition of these charges, which, in the case of private wards, are eleven times what was charged when this Government came to office?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honorable gentleman is giving information.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– Will the Minister agree that the charges imposed in private wards are eleven times as high-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honorable gentleman is giving information. He may seek information and press for action.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– Will the Minister say whether it could be held that those increased charges could lead people to defer seeking hospital treatment because of their inability to pay the charges, or would the Minister say that the increases are of a pattern of anti-inflation design?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The present charges at the Canberra Community Hospital are far below those in State hospitals, and it has been decided to bring them into line with those prevailing in New South Wales. The honorable gentleman would of course be aware when he asked his question that the new charges are not to come into operation until ample time has been afforded for all members of the community to in crease their insurance cover in order to provide themselves with adequate resources to meet me new charges.

page 2961

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. When does the Government intend to begin the establishment of national television stations in the thirteen country areas which were recently granted commercial licences? If the move is delayed, is it because it is Government policy to let the commercial stations get well established before the national stations come in to compete with them?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I shall answer the last part of the honorable member’s question first. There is no intention deliberately to hold up the establishment of national stations so as to let the commercial stations commence operations. The position is that planning has been proceeding for some time in anticipation of the expansion of the national services, and discussions are currently taking place between the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, all of which are involved in the extension of the national services. The matter will proceed as rapidly as possible; but as I said in my statement on country television licences recently, it is not expected that the national services will be in operation as soon as the commercial stations, largely because of the fact that the departments have thirteen stations to provide for whereas in the commercial field, each company has one station.

page 2961

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr BARNES:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Treasurer inform the House whether the honorable member for East Sydney has been appointed financial editor of the “ Sydney Morning Herald “?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is out of order.

Mr Harold Holt:

– I think it would be desirable if this matter were cleared up-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not think the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ comes under the control of the Treasurer. I ask the House to come to order. Recently, I asked for the co-operation of all honorable members and Ministers in improving question time. I rather regret that the position is beginning to drift. I shall have to be a little more strict in enforcing the Standing Orders in the interests of everybody.

page 2962

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that the Postmaster-General has rejected the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s recommendation that the English company, Associated Television Limited, should not be permitted to control any interest in the Richmond-Tweed Heads and Ballarat licences recently granted by Cabinet, and that A.T.V.’s interest in the licences granted for Canberra, Wollongong and Central Tablelands should be limited to 5 per cent.? Is it a fact also that A.T.V. controls either directly’ or indirectly the following shareholding in companies to which the Government has granted mono.polostic country television licences: Canberra, 15 per cent.-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is giving information. I must ask him to state his question.

Mr DALY:

– Has the Government granted monopolistic-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman will ask his question.

Mr DALY:

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: Does this overseas company, Associated Television Limited, have larger shareholdings in three metropolitan television stations- ATN, QTQ and NWSthus giving it a dominating interest in eight Australian television stations? How does the Government justify the free and unfettered gift of such a network of Australian stations to a London company, when it has refused to grant any country licences to groups which include maximum shareholdings of 15 per cent, by metropolitan stations? Is it true that the largest-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In what way am I out of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I directed the honorable member to ask his question. He proceeded to give information and defied the Chair.

Mr Uren:

– Mr. Speaker, I move -

That the honorable member for Grayndler be heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The motion is out of order.

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether in view of the need for a restriction of Government spending and in order to help the Treasurer in his dilemma of finding some avenue in which Government spending may be reduced, and in view of the impact of the purchase of television sets on the hire-purchase debt, the Postmaster-General will reconsider his decision to establish thirteen new television areas?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– It will be perfectly obvious from the statement of the Treasurer in this House that the plans which have been outlined are designed to deal with the present situation. In suggesting that additional national stations should not be established, the honorable member for Wakefield does not take into account the fact that there will be no appreciable capital expenditure on these projects in this financial year and only a small capital expenditure in the next financial year. Therefore, the financial impact on our economy of the television proposals will not be immediate. I am quite sure it will be agreed that by the time substantial expenditure is required the measures taken by the Government to remedy the present situation will have been effective and no problem will arise.

page 2962

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer whether he will give an assurance that, in the event of Government policies failing to stabilize imports at a satisfactory level, the Parliament will be recalled if further action has to be taken to restrict imports.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I do not think that honorable members should anticipate that anything so dramatic or drastic as to require an emergency meeting of Parliament is likely to occur. The Government is able to follow the position of our imports and exports quite closely. As the Prime

Minister has pointed out to the House, there is a daily examination inside the Treasury of economic trends, and there is a weekly and a monthly survey of various aspects. We can regard ourselves as being as closely in touch with developments as any political and administrative organization could expect to be. Indeed, I think the public, when it is considering some of the criticisms directed against the Government’s policies, may take some comfort from the fact that because of the wealth of information that is available to the Government but not to its critics, no one is better placed than is the Government and its advisers to assess the trend of economic events.

page 2963

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade whether he or the Minister for Primary Industry had discussions with either the chairman of the Australian Wool Bureau or the Government nominee on the bureau before they went to London for the International Wool Secretariat meeting. If so, did he discuss with them whether or not Australia should “ go it alone “ in increased wool promotion if the other partners in the International Wool Secretariat are not prepared to increase their contributions? Did he discuss whether the headquarters of this organization, to which Australia is by far the largest contributor, should be transferred to Australia? Can he give the House any information about the results of this meeting so far?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The Australian Wool Bureau appointed a business consultant to investigate the whole promotional campaign, and forwarded me a copy of the consultant’s confidential report. Consequent upon the receipt of that report by the bureau, the chairman proceeded to London, accompanied by Mr. Waterman, a member of the bureau. They have had negotiations with representatives of South Africa and New Zealand, and the advice I have received up to date is that their representations and recommendations have been favorably received by those representatives. We are, of course, awaiting further information about the matter.

page 2963

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. In order that Australia may be afforded some reasonable prospect of surmounting its present economic difficulties, will the. Prime Minister undertake to proceed overseas immediately, in company with the Treasurer, to resume the task which he commenced at the United Nations earlier this year of advising the other countries of the world how to resolve their problems, and leave the decisions to be made in this country in more capable hands?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This seems a very complicated idea, but of course I will give it very earnest attention.

page 2963

QUESTION

STANDARD WORKING HOURS

Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. By way of preface I refer to a statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the effect that there has been no change in the hours of work in Japan, West Germany and Australia respectively in the last ten years. Can the Minister tell the House what are the average hours of work in Japan and West Germany, which are Australia’s competitors in overseas markets?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I think that when figures of the kind mentioned are quoted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they must be accepted with reserve, and even with scepticism. I think we can divide this question into two parts. So far as nominal or standard hours, as we in this House know them, are concerned, there are only two countries that can be favorably compared with Australia. They are France and New Zealand. Most other countries work much longer hours than they do. So far as actual working hours throughout industry are concerned - not only manufacturing industry but all industry - in the United Kingdom 46 hours a week are worked, in Germany 45.7 and in Japan 51 - not 40 hours, as might be inferred. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would, I am sure, be glad to know, because his addiction to the law and to conventions as means of solving all our problems is well known, that at the recent International Labour Conference the problem of standard hours of work was discussed in detail, and the ideal was set at 40 hours. Such a standard working week has long been in operation in Australia, while it has not been in operation in many other countries.

Mr Whitlam:

– I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr. Speaker. I have been grievously misrepresented. I did not say last night that Japan and West Germany worked the same number of hours as Australia. What I did say was that throughout the 1950’s West Germany, Japan and Australia had had no change in their working hours, and that during that decade we had experienced inflation five times as severe as that of Germany.

Mr McMahon:

– I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McMahon:

– Well, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has misquoted both himself and me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This cannot be allowed to develop into a general debate.

Mr McMahon:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has misquoted what I said and he has misquoted his own words. I should like to read exactly what the honorable gentleman said last evening.

Mr Calwell:

– On a point of order: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made a personal explanation. I suggest that, under the Standing Orders, there is no power for a Minister to canvass that explanation.

Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. I ask him: Was he misquoted a few minutes ago by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?

Mr MCMAHON:

– Let the facts speak for themselves. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said last evening was -

Workers in other countries in the world also enjoy the 40-hour week, and have enjoyed it for much longer-

Mr Bryant:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister is answering a question. He may answer in any way that he likes, and the Chair has no control over him in that respect.

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– On a point of order: I ask you, Sir, whether the Minister is entitled to quote from what is in effect an unrevised edition of “ Hansard “. It is not even the proof copy.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister is in. order. His answer is relevant to the subject-matter to which the question was directed.

Mr MCMAHON:

– I am delighted to be given an opportunity to quote the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition again. He said -

Workers in other countries in the world also enjoy the 40-hour week, and have enjoyed it for much longer than have the workers of Australia* but . . .

He then went on to deal with another aspect relating to rises in prices.

Mr Whitlam:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Labour and National Service did not read the complete passage. I went on to cite the example of Canada and the United States of America, which also have a 40-hour working week and which have had it for a quarter of a century. I pointed out that in Australia inflation was four or five times as great as in Canada and the United States, each of which has had the 40-hour week. It is quite plain to honorable members-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should endeavour to debate the subjectmatter of his explanation.

page 2964

QUESTION

COMPANY LAW

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the draft of the new uniform companies act and ask the honorable gentleman what significance attaches to the restriction with respect to the age of directors. Can the Minister advise the House of the procedure yet to be followed before the new legislation will become operative throughout Australia?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I do feel that I am in a position to discuss the detail of this draft. It has been circulated for consideration by people who will be affected by it, and by various departments. I expect that in due course it will be further revised and then progressively enacted by the States and by the Commonwealth in respect of its Territories. But this process may quite likely take some time.

page 2965

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Why has he proclaimed nearly all the sections of the Navigation Act 1958 except those few which would enable Australia to ratify half a dozen International Labour Organization maritime conventions which were signed in 1936, 1946 and 1949? I also ask: When will the Department of Shipping and Transport make a contribution to the reducing of Australia’s backlag of unratified conventions, which is already the largest in the English-speaking world?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– I shall get for the honorable member the reasons for the delay. I assure him that the Department of Shipping and Transport is working on these conventions, and some of them will be presented to the Parliament shortly.

page 2965

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES IN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for External Affairs a question. As the answer given yesterday by the Minister to the honorable member for Lilley was different from the answer given on 19th October by the Acting Minister for External Affairs to a similar question asked in another place, has there been any change of policy during the last month on the question of reciprocity as between the conditions under which Australian diplomatic representatives operate in Moscow and the conditions which apply to Russian representatives in Canberra? When diplomatic contacts between the two countries were recently re-established, were they not to be based on reciprocity both in regard to the number of officers in the respective embassies and the restriction of movements? Is such restriction in Australia not due to the imposition of similar restriction in Russia in the first place and not applicable to any other diplomatic representative in Australia?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I was not aware that there was any inconsistency in answers given on this matter. The arrangement in relation to travel, to take the outstanding example, is in all substance reciprocal. In other words, in the case of other missions in Australia, there are no restrictions because none exists in their countries in relation to our missions. In the case of the Soviet embassy, the restrictions imposed are substantially the same as the restrictions imposed upon the Australian representatives in Moscow. That seems fair, and broadly that is the position. I do not say that the restrictions are identical to a word because local circumstances change.

page 2965

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1960. Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1960.

Loan (Housing) Bill 1960.

page 2965

SUPPLY (GRIEVANCE DAY)

Royal Australian Air Force Bombing Range,

Morna Point - Hovercraft - Lord Howe Island - Telecommunications - Commonwealth Development Bank - Pensioners: Payment of Municipal Rates - Cattle-Iron and Steel- Roads- Timber - Television

Question proposed -

That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.

Mr JONES:
Newcastle

.- I wish to refer to a matter which affects my electorate and the adjoining electorate of Shortland. This is the use of the bombing range at Morna Point near Port Stephens, which has been under consideration for a considerable time. On 3rd October, a young lad from Newcastle was killed as the result of the explosion of a missile which had been collected, amongst others, from the Morna Point range. The range was first established in 1944, during war-time and when Morna Point was relatively isolated. Very few houses were there and very few people visited the area. In fact, Port Stephens itself was almost isolated from Newcastle. The only access to it was by private vehicle over a very bad road. There was no public transport to or from the area. I agree that at the time the bombing range was established, Morna Point was a quite suitable place for it. It was about 25 miles from Newcastle and, as I have said, relatively isolated. However, since then, the Port Stephens area has been developed. Thousands of homes have been built there and it is no longer isolated. The result is that this bombing range is now in the centre of a heavily settled area.

The area is a popular holiday resort and every year thousands of people use the bombing range for picnics. I have gone there with my family for picnics. It is an ideal place for this purpose and for beach fishing. I believe that it is time that the appropriate Minister considered removing the bombing range from this area. Representations have been made by my colleague, the honorable member for Shortland (Mr. Griffiths), who has asked, on behalf of residents of my electorate, that the range be shifted. The then Minister for Defence, Sir Philip McBride, acknowledged his request and on 9th October, 1958, replied that the complaint had been investigated but at that stage the range could not be shifted because no other suitable site was available. But this is not merely a question of a suitable alternative site being available. The fact is that the range is no longer suitably positioned. To-day, it is a hazard and a menace to the residents of Newcastle and Port Stephens, and the Government should shift it. This is not a satisfactory site for a bombing range.

I received correspondence from the Morna Point Progress Association in September of last year and arranged to interview the Minister on 24th September with the honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Lucock) and the honorable member for Shortland, who were interested in the matter. The Minister was quite sympathetic and said he would investigate the matter. On behalf of the three of us, the honorable member for Lyne on 24th November, 1959, asked the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne) what progress had been made with his investigations. The Minister replied -

Investigations are being made into this difficult matter at the present time. A small team of experts from the Department of Air is visiting the area to look into the possibility of moving the range. I would remind the honorable member, however, that an effective bombing and gunnery range near Williamtown base is absolutely essential for the effective working of the base. Unless we can find another suitable area close to the base, it will not be practicable to close the range now being used.

What do we put first - the lives of young people, local residents and visitors to the area, or the need for a bombing range? I believe that the range should be shifted to a more suitable place. After all, with highspeed aircraft to-day, a distance of 25 miles, or even 100 miles, is nothing. These aircraft travel at 500 miles an hour or more and could cover a distance of 100 mila from Williamtown in about ten minutes. This is a question of saving lives. I want to refer now to a report which appeared in the “ Newcastle Morning Herald “, of 3rd November, 1960, dealing with an inquest held into the death of a young lad aged sixteen years. I will not give details as to who he was. The press report states -

Tongue told the Coroner’s Assistant (Sergeant E. Parsons) that when Noel had taken the bomb home he did not know it was a bomb.

Noel had showed it to him when he had brought it back from the R.A.A.F. firing range at Morna Point.

That shows where the young lad had obtained the bomb. The report continues -

At 10 a.m. on October 5 Major S. G. Harman, of Eastern Command, Sydney-

That is the man who recently carried a very dangerous shell through Sydney - called at Adamstown Police Station and identified the nose-cap and tail-piece as being from a 2 in. high explosive Army mortar bomb.

Major Harman told him the bomb had not exploded on firing, causing the interior mechanism to become dangerous to handle.

Another young lad, a friend of this boy, said that three months before the fatality they went with a boy named Smith to the R.A.A.F. range at Morna Point to get samples of bullets. The newspaper report continues -

The range was not fenced off-

I emphasize that -

The range was not fenced off. Other people were often there fishing or picnicking. There was one sign saying the area was an R.A.A.F. firing range.

They found a number of 30 mm. shells and practice heads. Some were on the sand and some were half-buried. Noel found the bomb on a sand dune and said he thought it looked like a smoke bomb.

The young lad took the bomb home and tried to dismantle it, believing it to be harmless. It exploded. That is the sad story relating to that case.

This is not the only example of the need’ for shifting the range. On 22nd August. 1959, there was another incident. The Army had been using this range on the 15th and 16th August. On 22nd August.. a young lad went there and found a number of sticks of gelignite bundled together. Fortunately, he knew what they were and immediately notified the police. Two police officers went along to the spot. One remained there while the other advised an officer of the R.A.A.F. who sent a squad along to pick up this dangerous bundle of gelignite and take it away. I bring these matters before the notice of the House and of the Minister for Defence, whose predecessor, Sir Philip McBride, had been approached on previous occasions. There have been many protests in the press about this range and I do ask the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne) who is sitting at the table, to do something about this danger. This young lad of sixteen years of age met his death on 3rd October this year because he was unaware of the nature of what he had picked up. He had free access to the area, as any one else has. There is a small notice on one side of the site saying that it is a bombing range, but that is all the warning there is. I agree that in 1944 this was a suitable site for a bombing range because the area was then isolated, but Port Stephens has developed greatly since then. Are we so narrowminded as to believe, and are the defence forces of Australia so immobile, that it is impossible to use some other site for a bombing range? My former colleague, the late honorable member for Hunter, Mr. James, once asked why Bird Island was not used. That might be an excellent site for a bombing range. I appeal to the Minister, in the interests of the safety of young people, such as this lad who was killed on 3rd October, to give serious consideration to removing the range to some other locality.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr CHRESBY:
Griffith

.- For some time now, I have been asking questions and making statements in this House in connexion with the hovercraft. I should like to direct attention to the fact that on 1 st September this year I asked a question without notice relating to the possibility of establishing a joint parliamentary committee to inquire into the development of the hovercraft and to make periodic reports upon the possible impact of this craft upon

Australia’s economy and transport system. On 13 th October last, I was advised by the then Acting Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) that this craft was in such early stages of development that it might be some years before commercial models would be available. On 26th October, I made a statement in this House giving all the facts relating to the development of the hovercraft to date. In that statement I also mentioned the dates on which it was expected that the various commercial models would be available. T am in a position to announce to-day that at the end of this month Mr. D. Hennessy, of the British hovercraft company, will be visiting Australia to study the Australian position. Because of that, I should like to direct the Government’s attention to certain most important factors connected with the development of this craft.

First, I point out that the burning question exercising the minds of those in this country who are interested in the commercial development of the hovercraft and such other things as the cushioncraft, the hoverscooter, the hover-truck and so on, is the question of jurisdiction. They are concerned to know who will have constitutional control of the operations of these groundeffects machines, as they are called. Will they be under the control of the States? My understanding from a study of their technical development is that the skill and knowledge required to operate one of these machines are no greater than the skill and knowledge required to operate an ordinary freighter truck. That being so, I should like to know whether these machines will come under the control of the States. If they are to be controlled by the States, will they come under the jurisdiction of the State Minister who administers traffic regulations, or will they be under the control of the State Ministers for Harbours and Marine if they are to be operated purely as watercraft on the waterways of the State and up and down the coast of the State? Or will they come under the overall control of the Commonwealth? I submit that all these questions must be answered with the greatest possible speed because I can assure honorable members that in Western Australia and Queensland there are persons who are interested in investing money in the development of a machine to be operated on the same principle as the hovercraft because the hovercraft itself has been patented. These people want to get going on the development of these machines and a speedy decision is important.

I know that one member of the New South Wales Parliament is interested in operating one on Sydney Harbour because, as honorable members will know, a 68- passenger craft capable of travelling at 70 knots will be available towards the end of next year. In Brisbane at the moment, one company is considering negotiating for the purchase of a cushion-craft which operates on a similar principle to the hovercraft, but as yet nobody knows in whose hands constitutional control will lie. In those circumstances, I suggest that it is expedient that these questions be decided now.

The second aspect with which I wish to deal is the impact of these machines upon Australia’s economy and transport system. In a speech which I made during the adjournment debate on 26th October last, I said that it was possible that within a very short time - three or four years - we would see operating on the Australian mainland, especially in the outback areas, this type of craft weighing 400 tons and capable of carrying a pay-load of 160 tons and moving across the country at something like 90 knots. We all know the tremendous problems associated with transport in the outback. Almost daily we hear references - some expressing satisfaction and others dissatisfaction - to the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States in connexion with roads. We know that in 1965 that agreement will be reviewed, and I feel that even at this early stage we must adjust our thinking to an anticipation of the probable effects of the operation of such big craft in the hinterland of Australia and of what will be necessary to cater for them. The development of major roads throughout Australia, especially in the hinterland, will cost many hundreds of millions of pounds, if we are to build roads of the type expected at the moment. If we are able to ascertain that craft of the type of the hovercraft can be operated satisfactorily over roads with perhaps only a light seal, great saving could be effected for the economy. We know already that these craft can be operated over swamps, bogs, sand and so on, and that floods make no difference to them because they create their own cushion of air. We also know that they do not destroy the land or blow it away. They can surmount all the obstacles I have mentioned because they create their own cushion of air. At the moment, the Minister for Transport in Great Britain, Mr. Marples, is considering a plan for a hovertrain which will travel at something like 100 miles an hour, using the existing railway permanent way. At first, it will probably consist of a number of hovercraft linked together, as it were. These are all portents of what we may see in the immediate future. We cannot set them aside and say that the matter is not worth looking at now because it may be several years before these craft are available. In the fields of science and technocracy, what is deemed to be improbable on Monday is an accomplished fact by Friday. We cannot afford to ignore the position.

In the interests of being on-side and well in advance of developments, I again make the plea that we should give very serious consideration to this question, on a Commonwealth basis. From what I know - and I have given years of study to the hovercraft and have done years of research work on it - I can foresee that in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe the demand for this type of craft, when it comes into operation on a commercial basis, will be sufficient to keep the factories of Great Britain busy. Any hope of our getting that type of craft will therefore have to be forgotten for some time.

We must put our constitutional situation with respect to these craft in order. We must decide where the operational control will lie and then encourage development and experiment in Australia. We must invite the British hovercraft people to negotiate with Australian companies for the manufacture of these craft in Australia, so as to let us get on with this thing. It is a very important subject, and one of the first and most important and most essential tasks in connexion with it is to decide where the control of these craft will lie. Will it lie with the States or with the Commonwealth? If the control lies with the Commonwealth, where will the jurisdiction rest? Will it rest with the Department of Shipping and Transport, or with the Department of Civil

Aviation? I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge), but I hope and trust, because of what this type of craft will mean to Australia, that the jurisdiction will not lie with the Department of Civil Aviation. I believe this is a machine that is properly a ground effect machine. It is not an aircraft and will not compete with aircraft in any way. It will compete with certain types of road transport and on the coast it can compete with certain types of coastal vessels. It can be used, on harbour-ways, to compete with various types of vessels.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney

– I desire to bring before the House a matter on which I have spoken many times previously. I join with the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Chresby) in commenting on the fact that the Minister under whose jurisdiction the matter to which I wish to address my remarks comes - the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) - is not in this House. Honorable members know that I have appealed time and time again, on behalf of Lord Howe Island, for the building of the airstrip which is so badly needed there, but I have got nowhere with my requests. I think it is a standing disgrace that 700 or 800 miles from here there is an island with 300 residents and with at least 400 or 500 visitors during the summer months, but there is no condition of safety attached to the journey for people who wish to go to Lord Howe Island for their holidays. In the electorate of West Sydney there are many people who would like to go to Lord Howe Island for their holidays. It is a nice place for a holiday, with no politicians to speak of, no telephones, no newspapers, and no noise. There is a flying boat which serves Lord Howe Island from the Rose Bay wharf or air base, as you might call it.

I intend to place some questions on the notice-paper in order to find out from the Government something about this matter. I understand that the Government pays about £70,000 per year to Ansett-A.N.A. and for looking after the Rose Bay base. If that sum can be expended yearly on this dreadful service and if an airstrip could be built on Lord Howe Island for something like £200,000, I think it would be good business for the Government to construct the strip. The cost of getting to and from Lord Howe Island is about £14 each way. A passenger has to get up at an unearthly hour in the morning - about 2 a.m. - to go down to Rose Bay and catch the flying boat. This aircraft was built about 40 years ago and none of its kind is being built in the world to-day; yet this Government cannot be moved in any way to help the people of Lord Howe Island or the New South Wales Government to provide an up-to-date service.

It is said that the service would not be payable, but many of the things done by this House do not pay. Nevertheless, if an airstrip were provided on the island Ansett-A.N.A. or some other company could carry the people to the island once or twice a week and give them some measure of comfort on the flight. Many of the ordinary people who go there or want to go there are young people - -rock’n’rollers or something like that - and I can assure the House that they rock’n’roll from the time they leave Rose Bay until they get into the guest house on Lord Howe Island. They get off the flying boat at Lord Howe Island as best they can, jumping into a rowing boat which takes them about 200 yards to the beach.

We know what happened in the recent presidential elections in the United States of America. Possibly the loss of the present administration’s majority there was caused by two islands. Quemoy and Matsu, because the defence of those islands was a burning question. I can assure the House that when the next federal election takes place I will make a burning question of transport to and from Lord Howe Island. Do not run away with the idea that I am lacking votes in West Sydney, because my majority over the Liberal Party candidate in 1958 was about 17,000 votes. I represent part of the largest city in the Commonwealth and my electors realize that Lord Howe Island needs a vastly improved service. I do not think it is right that the people who require to go to Lord Howe Island - people who are sick and want to recuperate or those who want to spend holidays there - should have to bear the present inconvenience. I regret to say that the proprietor of “Pinetrees” guest house on

Lord Howe Island, died recently. He took a boat there for the convenience of the visitors and took them out twice a week for a pleasure run. His death was a great loss to the island. It is sad to say that this Government ignores the whole question. I will leave it at that at present and will find out what is the joke between this Government and Ansett-A.N.A. about Rose Bay and the rocky road to Lord Howe Island.

The next matter of which I wish to speak is the pensioners in my electorate. To-morrow, Saturday and possibly every day in December I will attend functions at which 200 or 300 pensioners will be present, at Glebe, Newtown, Millers Point and Woolloomooloo.

Mr Chaney:

– I hope you pay to go in.

Mr MINOGUE:

– It would be a bad lookout if the honorable member went there, because I do not think he is too generous to the pensioners over in Perth. In speaking of the pensioners to-day I am referring to people who have no houses of their own or anything at all. I give credit to the Government for the merged means test and for anything that it gives the pensioners, even if it is only an additional 5s. a week. Nevertheless, at a time when the Government has failed the country and has failed to stop inflation the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) thinks this is a good Government because it looks after the country from day to day. He said so last night. The Government keeps a watchful eye on the farmers, but it is the pensioners who are being squeezed by inflation. The Country Party takes £13,000,000 a year from this Government as a subsidy on butter. When the Government suggested recently that the subsidy should be reduced gradually year by year, naturally the Country Party opposed it.

The honorable member for Calare (Mr. England) who has recently joined us in this place is not the Prime Minister’s man. I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) say during the campaign in the Calare division, “ I want Meares; Meares is my man “. But Meares did not turn up here. He was beaten by 4,000 votes. The Country Party is demanding many favours from the Government and is getting them.

The point that I wish to make is that if this Government does not give some relief to the pensioners who are starving, they will be in a sorry position. We have wheat, wool and other primary products growing, in our own country, but apples cost 9d. each and eggs cost 7d. each. How can the pensioner, who has to pay £2 or £3 a week for a room, buy any of those things with the £2 that he has left. How can he buy bacon and steak at 7s. and 8s. per lb., and the other things that he sees in shop windows? If this Government was honest and sincere, it would attach to a pensioner’s card, every time he collects the pension, a ticket which would entitle him to obtain 1 lb. of butter and one dozen eggs free, or at least at a concessional rate. If the farmers can loaf on the country and make their occupations pay by reason of the subsidies that they receive from the Government, surely the Government can do something for the people who have pioneered this country and now are too old to obtain a job. In all sincerity, I ask the Government to do something for the pensioners.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FAIRHALL:
Paterson

– For many years I have been urging a divorce of the Postmaster-General’s Department from control of telecommunications in Australia, and the establishment of an independent authority to handle this very difficult problem.

It is not inappropriate at this stage to review the history of television to date and to draw from it some support for the proposals which I advance. In 1953, as the House will recall, we had a royal commission into television. The commission concerned itself to a great extent with the sociological aspect of this new medium of entertainment and education, but it said very little about the technical background. As we now know, we are becoming heavily involved in that subject. Somewhere there is a guilty man who failed to give to the Government the right advice on the terms of reference for that royal commission. How much that will cost the country in pounds, shillings and pence, to begin with, and in inconvenience and loss of service is almost incalculable. However, the report stated that there should be a technical inquiry. Unhappily nothing has been done about it.

In due course, applications for television licences were called. City stations were licensed and, after a few years, we have come to the extension of television to country areas. Once again applications for licences were called and we had the protracted hearings which have been the subject of so much complaint and adverse criticism throughout the nation. When we reached the point of issuing licences it suddenly dawned on the powers that be that all of this is bound up with our inability to settle the technical problems of the industry. So perforce the applications had to be put on one side while we set up a half-baked technical inquiry conducted, in this case, by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The technical committee, which it was fondly hoped would produce a solution to this problem, submitted a report which did two things. First, it illustrated in great detail the enormous technical difficulties involved in television and, secondly, it suggested that the problem be referred to another committee.

We have the completely ludicrous situation in this country to-day of the Government having licensed a number of companies to operate country television services but, at the same time, saying to the companies, “We cannot tell you on what frequency your station will operate, therefore we cannot tell you where you can establish your station “. The Government says something less than that to the people in country areas who have been waiting an inordinate time for television services. This is the sorry pass that we have come to because, some one blundered back in 1953. It is to avoid this kind of thing in the future that I urge the Government to give urgent and close attention now to this question of separating the control of telecommunications from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and vesting that control in a completely independent authority.

What is the situation in Australia at present? About 40 or 50 years after the commencement of broadcasting services we find that we have no frequencies available for the extension of country broadcasting. It is most interesting to read the relevant portion of the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which is in these terms -

The Board is examining various methods, such as the use of directional aerials and other techniques of improving the broadcasting service in country areas’ . . .

In any normal country which appreciated the difficulties of the problem and where the department appreciated its responsibilities, this matter would not be regarded, now in the way in which this Government is regarding it. It would have been locked at 40 years ago, as other more advanced countries were obliged to do.

We commenced operating television on the very high frequency band, and at thai time it was stated that there were enough frequencies to meet requirements in the foreseeable future. Yet within a few years of the commencement of the service we suddenly find that we have run out of frequencies and we have to go into this panic consideration of what frequencies we shall use for the extension of television services.

The delay in dealing with country television licences is perhaps the smallest problem that we have to face in this case because in its report the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has stated that unless we can find thirteen channels in the v.h.f. section of the radio spectrum we shall not be able to operate the kind of television service which we envisaged. Why did we have to wait till this time to find out about this? Clearly, the authorities should have been aware of this many years before television began in Australia. If the necessary action was not taken then, it certainly should have been taken in the two or three years which intervened between the commencement of television in the capital cities and the extenson of television to country areas because - this is the important point - the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has stated in its report that if thirteen frequencies cannot be found in the very high frequency section of the band we must decide to use ultra high frequencies immediately.

It is very interesting to learn what will follow from this. I shall deal with my own area - Newcastle, the Lower Hunter and the

Hunter Valley - because at present there are between 5,000 and 6,500 licensed television receivers in use. The people watch Sydney programmes on v.h.f. If the decision is made to use u.h.f. for country services - this is quite possible from what the board has stated - the 6,000 people in that area will not be able to watch programmes from their local station unless they spend an amount estimated at from £10 to £25 to modify their receivers. Based on experience in America, this will mean that probably 6,000 viewers will be denied the opportunity to watch programmes from the licensed Newcastle station. The point I want to make - I raise it more in sorrow than in anger - is that this is precisely what happened in America. This is the matter about which I and others have been warning the Government for the past six or seven years. Because the Government has overlooked its responsibilities in this matter we have landed in a great deal of trouble. What is the Government’s method of getting out of it? It set up a technical committee of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to solve the problem, but the committee merely said how involved the problem was and referred it to the Radio Frequency Allocation Review Committee. This committee is sitting on the matter at the moment. It is composed of men of undoubted technical ability, yet they are part-time employees of the Government in relation to this particular problem. They are employed in private industry and they cannot give full time to the problem. Nevertheless, the whole development of country television services is now to await the determination of this committee, and inevitably if there is not to be an inordinate delay the committee will have to deal with this particular aspect of the problem ahead of the whole question of the frequency spectrum which is its responsibility. This is dealing with things piecemeal.

I am not at all impressed by the proposals in the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s report in which a recommendation is made from the technical side of the board that a television advisory committee should be set up. This television advisory committee, it is suggested, should be limited to one or, at the most, two members from each of the appropriate sections of the industry. In other words, these are going to be parttime technical officers of the Government.

The time available in which to deal with this subject is all too inadequate. But it ought to be raised at this point because the longer we delay - even for a week - the more trouble we are going to get into on this matter. When one looks at the great evolution of telecommunications in this country one realizes the great loss which arises from inadequate use and from bad technical decisions, and the loss which arises from overlapping. We have men in the technical sections of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board looking after television and broadcasting, and we have technical men in the Postmaster-General’s Department looking after telecommunications, and all sorts of other people denied reasonable access because we have fumbled the allocation of frequencies. The time has come when the Government must here and now come to the setting-up of a permanent agency consisting of high-class technical people to deal with this problem as it should be dealt with.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

.- In the ten minutes available to me I intend to endeavour to deal with two subjectmatters - the practices of the Commonwealth Development Bank, and municipal rates as they affect pensioners. Yesterday, in a question to the Treasurer, I asked if the latest statement by the Government might mean greater hope for applicants for loans from the Development Bank. I had primary producers, in particular, in mind when I asked that question. If we got round to making some analysis of why the people of Calare decided to reject the Liberal candidate at the recent by-election in that division, and supplanted the Liberal Party there by electing an Australian Country Party candidate, we would find the reason was what has happened in regard to the availability of credit to primary producers.

I would say, without any prejudice to the views that may be held generally by the Labour Party, that the electors of Calare acted as they did because they feel that the Liberal Party is responsible for the depressed state of farm incomes and for the lack of decentralization of industry to country areas. I am not saying that my analysis of the electors’ thinking is correct, but I think it is. These conditions apply particularly in the area around Dubbo, Blayney and so on where the electors are resentful of the fact that farmers and primary producers generally are unable ‘to obtain credit to develop their farms. I have had cases mentioned to me of people who went to the Development Bank seeking loans to carry out pasture improvement or install irrigation services on their farms, and despite the fact that the amount of money they were seeking was infinitesimal compared with the value of the security they had to offer in land and property they were unable to get that kind of assistance from the Development Bank. Here we are asking the primary producer to boost his production and help the country out of the calamitous position in which it now is in respect of its overseas trade balances, yet the Development Bank, which was supposed to be going to do that very task-

Mr Hamilton:

– And so it does!

Mr REYNOLDS:

– The honorable member says that the bank is doing the job it was set up to do. Just look at the number of applications for assistance that are rejected.

Mr Hamilton:

– How many?

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I would say that nearly two-thirds of them are rejected. I can cite a case which is much nearer home, since a relative of mine is concerned. He was admitted to a ballot in Queensland in connexion with the sub-division into four properties of a large station. He applied to be included in the ballot, along with 500 other people, and was admitted to the ballot. Two hundred of the applications were rejected because the applicants were considered not to have the aptitude for farm life and not to have the acquaintance with the cattle industry which was regarded as desirable, because this is cattle country in western Queensland. About 300 applicants were admitted to the ballot for the four properties and this man was one of the lucky four. It looks almost certain that his luck in the ballot will not continue, because the Development Bank has rejected outright his application for assistance. It has given him nothing. It is not even pre- pared to assist in any part, but the private pastoral companies of Queensland are prepared to help him to some extent. The fact that the Development Bank will not help him puts him in the position of having to borrow from private sources.

Mr Barnes:

– But that is not a case for the Development Bank.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– The honorable member says that it is not a case for the Development Bank, yet here is a large station subdivided with the idea of enabling intensive development of the cattle industry. I wonder what kind of things the Development Bank is supposed to help with if it is not supposed to help in achieving closer settlement in Queensland and thereby developing the cattle industry. One would imagine that even if our own domestic shortage of meat in Australia did not justify the bank’s help in such a case our need to build up our export income would tip the balance. But not on your life! The bank rejected the application completely. But other people have sensed the prospects available. Admittedly the man had not a lot to offer as security, but that is not supposed to be the criterion. Here is a man with aptitude and experience willing to give his services and involve himself in a venture on the land. The pastoral companies have sufficient confidence in the project and sufficient faith in the industry to help him, but not the Development Bank. To the members of the Australian Country Party who are interjecting now I say that I could appeal to their own leader. I do not want to involve him in anything, but I am also pretty sure that he does not think that the Development Bank is doing the task expected of it. T am also pretty sure that if you were honest and truthful about the matter you would also admit that the Development Bank is not doing the task that the Country Party expected of it when the legislation was passed.

Mr Hamilton:

– I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask that the honorable member withdraw and apologize for his remark that if I were honest and truthful I would make the admission to which he referred. I ask for this under Standing Order No. 77.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I am prepared to substitute the word “ frank “. I had no intention of reflecting on the honorable member’s honesty. Now I turn to the second matter I want to raise, if I can have some order in the chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr REYNOLDS:

– Another group of people who are being badly hit by the Government includes not only pensioners who are being denied assistance in meeting their municipal rates and water rates commitments, but also the highly rated citizens of various municipalities who have been called upon to pay compensation, in effect, for the inadequate pension paid by this Government to pensioners. In the municipalities of Hurstville, Rockdale and Kogarah, in my electorate, we have many cases of resident pensioners who have been rated out of the area - rated out of the very community they have helped to establish over the years, the very community that they have made into an attractive place to live in. These people who pioneered the district have been rated out of it. It is not that I expect that they would be given very substantial rebates in rates. The Government should be paying more attention to the needs of ordinary pensioners. It should help them to pay their way in the community and meet the demands for municipal rates, water and other charges. But the municipal authorities are being compelled to supplement the inadequate social service payments of this Government. The supplementary allowance should be extended to single pensioners who are living in their own homes and to the pensioners, both married and single, who are paying off their own homes. Many single pensioners are paying a substantial amount off their houses and they are excluded from the supplementary allowance whereas it is granted to those who are paying rent.

I would not deny the supplementary allowance to those who are paying rent, but I believe there are other sections of the pensioners who need this extra assistance. Municipal authorities should not have to bear social service responsibilities. They have plenty of other things to do in the community. I believe the Commonwealth Government should consider seriously the proposal by local government bodies that they should have a share of the tax revenue raised by the Commonwealth to help them meet their municipal responsibilities. When the rate-paying community has to subsidize inadequate Commonwealth pensions, it is bearing an undue burden. If municipal governments have to give some relief to pensioners by concessions on their rates, the burden should not be placed entirely on ratepayers who own their homes, but should be shared by all persons who earn incomes. In many families with children, the husband is the only wage-earner and such people should not have to compensate pensioners for the Government’s deficiencies. The Government should make a direct contribution to local government bodies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

.- I wish to speak on two important industries which provide the greatest opportunity for the development of our export trade. I refer to the cattle industry and the production of iron and steel. Most of our cattle population is in Queensland and in the area immediately adjacent in the Northern Territory, and the two areas are more or less dependent on each other. An important factor in the development of the cattle industry is the provision of roads to facilitate the transfer of cattle from one part of the country to another. Queensland, particularly west of the Great Dividing Range, has an uncertain climate. Rainfall varies considerably. One area might have a good season, and another, 400 or 500 miles away, might have a drought. The railway systems which run generally from east to west do not serve the purpose of transferring cattle from a drought area to a district where the cattle may be fattened or saved. The provision of roads is essential.

In a dry season, and in the off season when pastures have deteriorated, there is always a percentage of cattle which could be marketed as fats, but at present, because we have to rely on droving, it is not economic to move them. It would not pay to put less than 400 fat cattle on the road. In any case, most of the roads would not be passable for stock because of a shortage of grass. If we had a suitable network of roads, we could have a continual supply of cattle to build up our export industry. We could get 100 from here and 150 from somewhere else. The movement of these cattle would make room for those that remain in the area.

The Queensland Government has a plan for roads to develop the whole of Queensland. The plan includes not only the Channel country, but also the Gulf country and the northern areas. We must accept its plan as the most suitable because it has been prepared by experts in the various departments. The construction of all these roads would cost between £8,000,000 and £10,000,000. The provision of these roads would put the cattle industry in a very sound condition. We could build up our export income and also save the cattle in times of drought. We lose cattle worth millions of pounds every time we have a drought in Queensland. If we saved those cattle, the Treasury would benefit.

I have been heartened by the statesmanlike declaration on economic policy that was issued by this Government recently. I believe this policy will provide more funds for use for development. However, despite the splendid record of this Government, I believe it could set a better example by diverting money which is now being spent in metropolitan areas. Undoubtedly, this expenditure has beneficial results, but it could be made to better purpose on the roads I have mentioned. I refer, for example, to a large block of Commonwealth offices now being constructed in Brisbane at a cost of about £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. No doubt similar buildings are being constructed in other capital cities. The money that is spent on those buildings would provide all the roads needed in Queensland to build up the cattle industry. That would save losses from drought and would also provide more income to develop the economy.

I direct my attention now to a matter concerning Queensland mineral deposits and the Australian steel industry. There has been a suggestion that we should permit the export of iron ore, but I am completely opposed to such exports. The steel industry has been developed to a point where it

F.9129/60.- R.- [Ill] can export its products. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is spending £30,000,000 a year to expand the industry. It is estimated that by 1970 the company will export £100,000,000 worth of steel. This export trade could be speeded up.

I do not see any reason why, if Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has not sufficient funds, we cannot attract overseas steel firms to set up another industry in Australia to speed up the expansion of our steel industry. I understand that 292,000,000 tons of steel were produced in 1957 in the world. It is anticipated that between 1972 and 1975 that figure will reach 630,000,000 tons. We have the coal and we have the iron ore. If we manufacture steel in this country we will sell, not only our iron ore abroad, but we will sell our coal and our labour also. If we export our iron ore we will provide other countries with an opportunity to compete against our own exports. I believe that every deposit of iron ore in this country should be developed. In this way we could continually develop and expand industry and provide jobs for thousands of Australians, including young Australians leaving school and immigrants to this country. We would also provide population for the scattered parts of Australia. We have to develop the northern parts of our country. Australia will be the base for the production of steel for the whole of the East and, undoubtedly, Asian countries will develop tremendously. The demand for steel products will be enormous over the next decade.

Mr BIRD:
Batman

– I am glad that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Opperman) is at the table because I intend to discuss a subject that is very dear to his heart and mind. I desire to criticize the continued smug approach of the Government towards the problems of the road system. This Government is quite content to sit back and remain perfectly oblivious to the ever-increasing worries of the State road authorities. The Government could not care less about roads. Unfortunately for the States, the views of the Commonwealth Government run counter to those of centralized governments in other countries where an entirely different outlook exists from that in Australia.

The governments of other countries know, from bitter experience, that the neglect of roads proves very costly to the country’s economy in the long run. In Victoria, the Country Roads Board has never had sufficient funds to do even a reasonable job. Recently the board prepared a very modest ten-year programme with a contemplated total expenditure of about £400,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year. At present, the board has not that amount of money to spend. Because of its present financial position, it will never be able to overtake the many lost years of construction.

It is time that the Parliament and the Government recognized that road finance should no longer be regarded as a charge against the motorist. It should rank in importance with outlay on such projects as water conservation and electricity supplies which are looked upon as an obligation of the whole community because they are national projects. I suggest that water conservation and electricity supplies are of no more importance to the well-being of the community than is an adequate road system. The Government subsidizes rail transport; it subsidizes air transport by providing costly civil aviation facilities, and it subsidizes water transport by paying subsidies to steamship companies. Yet the Government expects road transport to subsidize Commonwealth revenue! If it is good enough for the Government to subsidize rail, air and water transport, why does it expect road transport to subsidize Commonwealth revenue? The whole thing is completely cock-eyed and it is time that the Government re-examined its attitude.

Everybody who has made the slightest investigation into this problem knows that transport charges form a major ingredient in production and marketing costs. Therefore, road transport facilities should expand equally with the economic development that they serve. That does not happen. Industries which have been established in certain parts of Victoria, for example, are served by a very mediocre and out-moded road system. We should ask ourselves this very important question concerning road transport throughout the Commonwealth: Should road construction be financed by motor vehicle taxation as though it were a problem for motorists only and not for the nation?

The Government says that the road problem has to be solved by increasing taxation on motorists. But, if necessary, it increases the taxation on the nation as a whole in order to overcome other problems. Although the Government singles out the motorist for heavy taxation, instead of using all the money so obtained for road construction, it puts a third into Commonwealth revenue. Nobody, not even the Minister for Shipping and Transport, thinks that the present aid roads legislation is an improvement on the previous act. Every one knows that, because of the increase in the number of motor vehicles over the last few years, there would have been substantial increases in funds allocated to the State governments under the old act, just as there have been under this act. More vehicles on the roads means higher petrol consumption and therefore more revenue to the Government.

Contrary to the policy of this Government, in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada, road transport in all forms is recognized as an essential community service. The provision of good roads is regarded in that light. I suggest that if the Government is interested in good roads it should immediately examine the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act which has all sorts of anomalies, faults and imperfections. This has slowed down the provision of an adequate road system in Australia.

One of the things that the Government should do is to examine the provision that 40 per cent, of the money given to a State must be spent on rural roads other than main roads and highways. I suggest that this provision should not be mandatory upon the various States because, obviously, some States have not the same problem of rural roads as other States. The greater problem of some States concerns their highways and main roads. Therefore, a State government should not be compelled to spend 40 per cent, of the amount received from the Commonwealth Government under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act on rural roads if it can spend it better on other roads.

This practice which the State governments are compelled to follow is not observed overseas. In some cases overseas, the expenditure of money given by a government to road authorities is related to traffic and communications problems as a whole. For example, it was found in the United Kingdom that just as much time was lost in traffic hazards in the cities as on bad roads outside the cities. There must be a balance.

It is quite obvious that the Government regards the motor industry as the Cinderella industry of the Commonwealth, despite the fact that it involves an increasingly large number of people and affects increasingly wide interests. In 1950 there were 1,400,000 vehicles in Australia, while in June, 1960, there were 2,834,000. These figures show a rise of 102 per cent, in ten years, while in the same period the population increased by only 26 per cent.

I object to the fact that this Government gives scant consideration to the interests of the private motorist. The average person who buys a car is taxed very heavily. He has to pay heavy sales tax, which, of course, will be even heavier as the Treasurer’s new proposals are implemented. He also has to pay substantial amounts of money in petrol tax. When he takes his car out for a drive he has to travel in many cases on municipal highways, which the councils find it beyond their financial capacity to maintain satisfactorily. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should amend the relevant legislation to provide that State governments should allocate reasonable amounts of money - not small amounts like £5,000 or £10,000, but substantial amounts of £100,000 or even £200,000 - for municipal councils to maintain roads that radiate from the centres of cities and carry heavy traffic.

This Government must abandon the idea that our roads are useful mainly as a source of federal revenue. The Government looks on motor vehicles as a means of augmenting its revenues. Despite what the Minister and other Government spokesmen have said, Commonwealth aid for roads is neither generous nor adequate, nor is it based on actual needs. Three-quarters of the money spent on Victorian roads is devoted mainly to keeping the existing roads as serviceable as possible. The various councils have not sufficient money to expand the roads system in Victoria. Therefore plans must be devised in this Parliament and in the State Parliaments to meet present and future traffic requirements. Recently, the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety presented a very interesting report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

.- I want to comment, first, on the remarks of the honorable member for McPherson (Mr. Barnes). I was rather amazed at the honorable member’s suggestions.

Mr Peters:

– They were brilliant!

Mr CHANEY:

– The meaning of “ brilliant “ varies in the minds of different people. I suggest that the honorable member goes back to sleep. I was amazed to hear the honorable member for McPherson advocate a policy of total prohibition of the export of iron ore. We must be awake to some of our responsibilities as a nation. If Australia, being mainly a primaryproducing nation and trying to develop secondary industries, found itself completely cut off from supplies of raw materials from other countries because those countries feared competition from Australian industry, we would be in a sorry state. We must adopt the attitude that competition is always healthy, and we must realize that there are countries to which iron ore is vital, and on the future of which availability of iron ore supplies must have a profound effect. I think that at present we should relax our prohibition on the export of iron ore. I am quite sure that nobody knows exactly what amount of iron ore exists in Australia.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We ought to know that before we agree to export it.

Mr CHANEY:

– I suggest we could make an arrangement similar to the one that was made with regard to manganese. Having set aside certain reserves of iron ore, we could say that we would permit the export of 50 per cent, of all new deposits discovered. That would be a sufficient safeguard. This is a matter to which the Government should give serious consideration.

However, I did not propose to talk about iron ore. I want to mention a matter that I have brought up previously in this Parliament. I refer to the position of the Western Australian timber industry. In June and July of this year the Tariff Board once again undertook an investigation of the Australian timber industry. It has not yet submitted its report to the Minister, alhough the Minister assured me about a month ago that he would see that the Tariff Board was seised of the urgency of the matter and that he would endeavour to have the report expedited. I hope that before this House rises the report will be tabled, and I hope that if the Tariff Board recommends certain measures to protect the Australian timber industry those measures will be taken. If it does not recommend protective measures, I hope the Government will still take some action, because it is vitally necessary.

In Western Australia where, as honorable members know, the timber industry is mainly concerned with hardwoods, royalties and rail freight charges have a profound effect on the cost structure of the industry. On 1st September of this year rail freights were increased in the miscellaneous field by some 20 per cent., and, under what is called the A rate, by 15 per cent. The miscellaneous rate is that which applies to timber carried from the timber mills to Parkeston for shipment on the transcontinental railway, while the A rate is that charged for timber carried from the mills to Bunbury, which is the main port for the export of timber from Western Australia. This increase in freights is vitally necessary because the railway system has been showing repeated losses year after year, and the State Government is trying to eliminate these losses. Although they are necessary, however, they have had a severe effect on the timber industry.

The State Government has also intimated that it proposes to raise the royalty rate by ls. 6d. on 100 super, feet, and strong representations have been made to induce the Government not to do this. State governments should realize that it is of no use to seek protection from the Commonwealth Government for an industry if the State Government is going to milk the industry once it gets on its feet or even before it reaches that stage. These royalties are imposed purely to boost State revenues, and they can do serious damage to the industry.

Since the last Tariff Board report on timber there have been increased imports of softwood and other woods from overseas, particularly from the United States of America, Malaya and Borneo. It is an amazing fact that the latest figures available show that freight costs on timber carried from Bunbury to South Australia are almost as high as on timber carried from the west coast of the United States of America to Adelaide. The proximity of the South Australian market is of no benefit to our timber industry because of the high cost of coastal shipping freights in Australian waters.

Timber imports have gone up by leaps and bounds. I shall cite a few figures to show what has happened in the period from December, 1958, to June, 1960.

Mr Stewart:

– Were you not in favour of the lifting of import restrictions?

Mr CHANEY:

– I am in favour of a protective policy for an industry on which a great part of the State is dependent. This is not a matter of establishing a factory to make stockings or pullovers or tobacco tins, or something else that can be purchased elsewhere at a lower price. I am speaking of an established industry which has been operating in this part of Australia for a long time. If the honorable member looks at the matter intelligently he will appreciate the argument and the value of the argument. The figures I shall give cover the three sources of imported timber. In December, 1958, imports from North America amounted to 82,000,000 super, feet. From Malaya we imported 17,000,000 super, feet, and from all other countries 45,000,000 super, feet. Total imports amounted to 144,000,000 super. feet of sawn timber. In June, 1959, the quantity imported from all sources was only 124,000,000 super, feet. This showed a drop of 20.000^000 super, feet. In December. 1959, the figure had increased to 138.000.000 super, feet, which was still below the figure for December of 1958, but in June, 1960, it had increased to 187.000.000 super, feet.

This increase of imports has had a grave effect upon the Australian timber industry.

The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) pointed out to me on a previous occasion that Western Australia was suffering from a self-inflicted wound. He said that in the days just after the war Western Australian suppliers had refused to provide timber for South Australian merchants, and that those merchants had had to look elsewhere. Since they found supplies forthcoming from other sources, they now say, “Western Australia treated us badly once before, so it cannot expect favorable consideration from us now”.

Mr Thompson:

– That was in relation not only to oregon but also to other timbers.

Mr CHANEY:

– Yes, such as meranti and other timbers from Malaya, which are a bit easier for carpenters and joiners to work than are the Western Australian hardwoods. But if the people in South Australia realized how badly the Western Australian timber industry is suffering because of inability to sell its product, they would not mind taking our hardwood, even if it meant a bit more effort in working that timber. I urge the Tariff Board to bring down its report, and I ask the Government to take action to preserve the timber industry in Western Australia, and also in Tasmania and other States.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a few questions in connexion with the issuing of licences for television stations in country districts which I should like to direct to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson). I am sorry to see that the Minister is not in the chamber at the moment. I ask him: Is it a fact that he has rejected the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s recommendation that the English company, Associated Television Limited, shall not be permitted to control any interest in the licences for stations in the Richmond-Tweed and Ballarat districts which have recently been granted by the Cabinet, and that this company’s interest in the licences granted for Canberra, Wollongong and the Central Tablelands of New South Wales shall be limited to 5 per cent.? I should like to know, also, whether Associated Television Limited controls either directly or indirectly the following proportions of the shareholdings in companies to which the Government has granted monopolistic country television licences: - Canberra, 15 per cent.; Wollongong, 14.06 per cent.; Richmond-Tweed, 8.33 per cent.; Central Tablelands, 7.5 per cent.; and Ballarat, 6 per cent. Does this overseas company, Associated Television Limited, have larger shareholdings in three metropolitan television stations - ATN, QTQ and NWS - thus giving it a dominating interest in eight Australian television stations? I ask further: How does the Government justify the free and unfettered gift of such a network of Australian television stations to a London company when it has refused to grant any country licences to groups in respect of which metropolitan stations have maximum shareholdings of 15 per cent.? I should like to know, also, whether it is a fact that the largest single interest of any Australian company is that of the Melbourne “ Herald “ company in the shareholding of three stations. If this is so, how can the Government claim to be interested in the development of Australian television production, when it grants an interest in eight stations to an overseas company - a huge television and film production organization which has not the faintest interest in or knowledge of local conditions but merely wishes to obtain outlets for the sale of its non-Australian products, even at the expense of the local industry?

I feel that these questions require answers, particularly in view of the findings of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board as a result of its recent inquiries, and in view of its report and recommendations to the Minister on the applications for commercial television licences in provincial and country areas. Paragraph 190, at page 151 of the board’s report, states -

It is necessary to refer to the position of A.T.V. (Australia) Pty. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Associated Television (England) Limited, which has considerable direct or indirect interests in commercial television stations ATN, QTQ and NWS and in a number of broadcasting stations. This company has, or proposes to have, shareholdings, in its own name or through broadcasting companies, in a number of applicant companies. The Board considers that, in the event of any of these applicants being granted a licence, the shareholding of any broadcasting company in which A.T.V. has a shareholding should be limited to 5 per cent, and that in the other cases no shareholding by A.T.V. (Australia) Pty. Ltd. should be permitted.

That deals with the limitation to 5 per cent, of the shareholding. Paragraph 196, at page 154 of the report, reads in part -

The conditions referred to in the preceding paragraph are -

As to Canberra Television Ltd. - that the shareholding of Canberra Broadcasters Proprietary Limited, in which Associated Television Limited, London, through subsidiary companies, holds approximately 45 per cent, of the shares . . . should be not more than 5 per cent, of the issued capital of the licensee company. . . .

As to Richmond Tweed T.V. Ltd.- that the shareholding (8ird per cent.) of A.T.V. (Australia) Pty. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Associated Television Limited, London (see paragraph 190),-

That is the paragraph that I read a moment ago - should not be permitted, and that the proposed general public issue of 25 per cent, of the issued capital be increased to 50 per cent, and offered to the public in the Richmond-Tweed Heads area . . .

As to Ballarat and Western Victoria Television Ltd. - that the shareholding (6 per cent.) of A.T.V. (Australia) Proprietary Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Associated Television Limited, London (see paragraph 190), and of Ballarat Theatres Proprietary Limited, a company controlled by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation of U.S.A. (6 per cent.) be not permitted; . . .

In paragraph 190 of the report, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board states that the interest of Associated Television Limited should be limited in certain cases to 5 per cent., and in paragraph 196, the board states that this company, in some cases, should not have any interest whatever in licences.

My information is that the Government, in granting licences, has rejected the report of the board. In view of the implications of the stipulations made by the board, we should know whether or not the companies concerned have been granted licences without effect being given to the recommendations of the board. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) recently stated, when dealing in this Parliament with the issuing of these licences, and the Postmaster-General has stated continually, that these licences are granted by an independent authority which has been set up to inquire into applications for licences and that the Government should accept that authority’s recommendations on these matters. But we know from experience that this Government has from time to time reversed decisions made by this and other authorities. It has not always given effect to the board’s recommendations, independent though the board may be. We have had similar experience with respect to the Tariff Board. That is an independent board which has been set up to inquire into certain matters, and sometimes the Government completely rejects its recommendations in favour of a certain course, without regard for the fact that the board has conducted independent and specialized inquiries.

The granting of television licences for stations in provincial cities and country districts is a matter of grave concern. Those who have studied closely this report by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board feel, quite apart from the facts that I have just mentioned, that the circumstances indicate that there is in process the forging of a further link in the great monopolistic system of the control of television - this important medium of propaganda - throughout the country. Therefore, there is grave concern at the reported rejection of the recommendations in the board’s report which I have mentioned. It is true that when announcing in this House the granting of licences for country television stations, the Postmaster-General stated -

The licences to be granted will be subject to a number of conditions which I will notify shortly to the successful applicants. In particular, modifications of the shareholdings in some of the companies will be required to provide that at least 50 per cent, of the shares will be made available to the public.

That in itself, though, does not go as far as it should and indicate that in some instances the interests of certain companies shall be limited to 5 per cent., and that in others certain companies shall have no interest whatever in the licences that have been granted.

The circumstances that I have outlined indicate that an assurance on these matters is needed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret that the question about these matters that I attempted to ask this morning was ruled by Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, to be out of order. I attempted to ask it only in order to obtain valuable information for the Parliament. I should like to hear the PostmasterGeneral affirm or deny the statements that I have made on these matters. which are of great importance to all concerned. If the things which I have mentioned have been done, and if the position is as I understand it to be and the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board have been rejected by the Cabinet or the Minister, it hardly seems worth while to have a board appointed for the purpose inquire into these matters at tremendous expense to the public and hear the evidence and submissions of numerous people, and then submit a report only to have sections of it which do not suit the Government rejected. I suppose that the Government is not obliged to accept these recommendations in their entirety, but there has been too much favoritism in the granting of television licences and too much rejection of those interests of independent thought outside the influence of monopoly control which might be able to give better service to those in the country and the provincial cities and towns. As a result, there is grave concern in the minds of the people, and especially those who understand the importance of television and its effect on our lives.

This is a powerful medium of propaganda which can be used to influence people in all walks of life, particularly in matters relating to national affairs, and we need to keep a medium of this kind outside the control of these monopolies which would use it exclusively for their own benefit regardless of the effect on the public. We have already seen how the newspapers in this country have come to dominate and control the dissemination of information. We know how they work in the main against the interests of the vast majority of the people, and particularly against the interests of those in the community who are represented by members on this side of the Parliament. Unfortunately, in every great metropolis in Australia, we have seen the great extension of the influence of these monopoly interests in the field of television. Who knows whether we may now be facing the same sort of situation with respect to television in provincial cities and towns and country districts, if these recommendations by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board are ignored in the way I have mentioned! This is something that we in the Parliament should know about. I therefore hope that the Postmaster-General will state quite clearly where the Government stands on these issues in order that we may know the exact position.

When all is said and done, the Minister was very touchy when he announced the issuing of country television licences and presented the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s report to the House. He was not at all co-operative in his response to the Opposition’s attitude. There is a feeling among members on this side of the Parliament and, I know, among the public generally, that the Government desires to cover up its action with respect to the issuing of television licences. We believe that these matters should be brought into the light of day, and particularly that we should know whether all the stipulations made by the board in its recommendations with respect to the granting of these licences are being observed and whether favoritism is being extended to certain interests, and particularly to the overseas company that I have mentioned, which has very little interest in or knowledge of the conditions in this country applicable to television. For too long, in all fields of activity, we have had absentee landlords. These absentee landlords should be kept out of the field of television. I should like an explanation from the Postmaster-General in respect of these matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order No. 291.

Question resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2981

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1960

Second Reading

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the recruitment and appointment provisions of the Public Service Act following the Government’s consideration of the report of the committee of inquiry into Public Service recruitment. The development of a public service of the highest quality and integrity is clearly a first essential of good government; and the quality of the Public Service itself is closely related to the standards established for recruitment. It follows, therefore, that it is prudent to keep standards of recruitment under review.

The recruitment provisions of the Public Service Act have remained substantially unaltered since the act was first passed in 1922. The Government readily agreed, therefore, with a recommendation of the Public Service Board that a committee of inquiry should be appointed to inquire into and report upon recruitment methods with the object of improving the quality of recruits. This committee consisted of -

Sir Richard Boyer, Chairman, Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Professor Hytten, former ViceChancellor of the University of Tasmania.

Dr. W. C. Radford, Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research.

Mr. R. S. Parker, Reader in Public Administration, Australian National University.

Mr. F. J. Webb, Commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The terms of reference of the committee should be put on record. They were -

To inquire into and report to the Prime Minister on the recruitment processes and standards of the Public Service and to make recommendations for any changes which, in the opinion of the Committee, are necessary to ensure that recruitment is soundly based to meet present and future needs and efficiency of the Public Service at all levels.

I should say at the outset that the Government is indebted to the Boyer committee for its comprehensive and thorough review of the recruitment problem within the Public Service. The committee made a number of recommendations which were interesting, challenging and constructive, and the report is a valuable contribution to the current and future development of the Commonwealth administration. In many respects, also, it will be a continuing document of reference.

It is a general conclusion of the Boyer committee that the Public Service is not obtaining sufficient recruits of the right quality to meet its greatly expanded tasks and that the service is too tightly closed against recruitment from outside to positions at intermediate and senior work levels. In addition, the committee suggests that policies in respect of organization and staff development should ensure that the best use is made of talent available.

The recommendations of the committee, about 70 in all, have been examined most carefully. Many of them have been accepted by the Government, and of these, some are incorporated in the bill before the House and the remainder will be put into effect administratively. In other cases, the Government endorses the objectives sought by the Boyer committee, but prefers to achieve these objectives by means different from those suggested by the committee. In a few cases, the Government was unable to accept the recommendations of the Boyer committee whilst in other cases - for example, the employment of married women - the implications of the recommendations are so far-reaching that much further study of them is required before a final decision is taken by the Government. I do not propose to develop a full analysis of the implications of all the recommendations of the Boyer committee in the course of this speech. The report has been before honorable members, but I shall say a few words about some of the recommendations.

First, I shall deal with the re-casting of recruitment provisions of the Public Service Act. There was a number of difficulties associated with the amendment of the existing provisions of the act in order to achieve the objectives of the committee’s report, for clear and flexible recruitment machinery. It has been decided, therefore, to re-cast completely Division 4 of Part III. of the Public Service Act, which deals with recruitment and appointment. There is, nevertheless, no departure in the new provisions from the broad principles on which the present legislation is founded.

Appointment to the Public Service will remain in the hands of the Public Service Board, as an independent authority and within the principle of open competition. The Boyer committee in endorsing this principle has recognized that a statement of it in legislation would need to be qualified by a number of important exceptions. The Government, therefore, proposes to continue to apply the principle of open competition without having it expressed formally in the act. The standards for appointment will be set by the board from time to time and notified in the “Commonwealth Gazette”. The Public Service Board will retain authority to conduct its own examinations or to use the standards of education authorities, and provision will be retained for promotion within the service so that the most junior officers will have the whole field of the Public Service open to them, provided they are able to meet the standards which are set for promotion within a division or, of course, advancement from one division to another. There will be a firm standard for appointment to the Third Division of the Service, about which I shall speak presently.

It is intended that there will be two general levels for recruitment to the Fourth Division, which contains 66,000 people. These levels will be at elementary and intermediate standards of education. I use the expression “ elementary and intermediate “, because whether it is to be the elementary or intermediate standard will depend on the classification into which a man is to be admitted. It would be ridiculous to impose the intermediate level if a man were to be taken on for relatively unskilled work. On the other hand, if a man enters as a trainee technician, or something of that kind, it may be very desirable that he should have reached the intermediate level. Within the Second, Third and Fourth Divisions of the service, appointments will now be possible, not only to specific positions within a division, but also generally within a division.

The basic requirements for appointment to the Commonwealth Service under the existing act are that the applicant is a British subject, medically fit, and has made and subscribed an oath or affirmation. These are retained in the new legislation. Additionally it is necessary to make it clear that the board may reject a candidate who, because of character, including, for example, a police record, or for other good reason, is not considered to be suitable for admission to the Public Service. The board, in the past, has been working on the assumption that it has the ordinary rights of an employer to decide whether a candidate for appointment meets the standard of character and integrity which is clearly essential. But there is some doubt about this and therefore there is included in clause 11 of the bill, in proposed new section 34 (c), a provision to enable the board to be satisfied that a candidate for appointment is a fit and proper person to be an officer of the Commonwealth service.

The Government has adopted the Boyer committee recommendation that the leaving certificate standard should be the firm minimum requirement for entry to the Third Division of the Public Service. This is a most important recommendation. Entry to the Third Division in this context includes leaving certificate entry, appointment of ex-servicemen who were previously eligible for appointment at about intermediate certificate level, and also transfers from the Fourth to the Third Division, which is done at present by internal examination.

It would be difficult to bring down legislation owing to the need to take account of the variation in educational standards as between the States, and, as was pointed out to me by a colleague recently, as between one country and another, because there may be some people here who had the preliminary education in another country. Hence, the Government feels that it would be preferable for the Public Service Board to give effect to this recommendation by administrative action. The legislation therefore leaves it to the board to determine the standards of entry, but it is the clear intention that an examination at the level and standard of the New South Wales leaving certificate will be the firm minimum standard for entry to the Third Division of the Service, with equivalent examinations in other States - for example, the senior public in Queensland. This minimum standard will apply both on first appointment to the Third Division and on transfer from the Fourth to the Third Division, although in the latter case one recognizes that the new idea may not be put into effect for a period, because it is not easy to put down a cut-down point of promotion from the Fourth to the Third Division.

The Boyer committee has made recommendations which are designed to facilitate recruitment of university graduates who have had work experience outside the Public Service, as well as graduates fresh from the universities. The committee has also recognized the need for persons, whether they are graduates or not, with particular qualifications and experience to meet special needs both in individual positions and specialized employment categories. The Government supports these objectives and provision is made in the legislation to give effect to them. Entry at university graduate level will be freely used for recruitment of professional or technical officers, but the existing 10 per cent, limit will be retained for recruitment of graduates to other posts in the Second and Third Divisions of the Service.

It is proposed to retain the provisions of the principal act which permit the board to make appointments from outside the Commonwealth Service, subject to certain safeguards and to the established selection procedures. However, the new section 38, which re-enacts the old section 47, will be limited in the future to the appointment of persons of exceptional ability and experience. A new section 37 will be used for most of the appointments of persons with professional and specialist qualifications. Under both these sections the rights of officers will, as at present, be protected.

The Boyer committee recommended that seniority as a criterion for promotion should be dropped entirely from the Public Service Act and Regulations. I would like to make it plain that we are on common ground with the committee that seniority should not be the sole, or even the principal, basis for promotion in administrative and senior clerical posts within the Commonwealth Public Service. The Public Service Act, as it stands now, prescribes that the criterion for promotion in the Second and Third Divisions of the Service is efficiency. It is only in a case of equality of merit that seniority is applied. In examining this suggestion, the Government was impressed with the fact that the Boyer committee’s recommendations would extend not only to the Second and Third Divisions of the Service, but also to the Fourth Division, which comprises approximately 66,000 officers, and which covers a great variety of employment including skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled operations, typing staff, general office assistants, minor clerical workers, and so on. The application of a pure efficiency test throughout the Fourth Division would present, we think, very great, and perhaps insuperable, difficulties. The Government is not convinced that there is a need to depart from the existing provisions and procedures.

In the Government’s view there must be a continuing quest for greater efficiency and the most efficient officers should be preferred for promotion. The bill provides, in clause 13, for an extension and a more flexible application of the principle that in considering officers for promotion to certain positions, regard is to be had to qualifications and aptitude to perform duties of higher positions. Just to make clear what is meant by that, let us assume that there are two officers of equal merit eligible for promotion to a post that is vacant. It may be that one of them gives much greater promise of being a useful man in a higher position when that higher position becomes vacant. In other words, this is a forward looking operation.

Mr Peters:

– It will take a bit of working out.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Of course it will take some working out. Judgment has to be exercised, and I submit with respect that judgment cannot be reduced to a formula. But it is very desirable that, in assessing the respective merits of officers, it should be proper and lawful to examine their future possibilities as well as their suitability for the post that is immediately concerned.

There are two important recommendations of the Boyer committee on which the Government has not yet reached decisions. These are the employment of married women and the medical standards for entry of physically handicapped persons. The Public Service Act at present requires women members of the permanent service to retire on marriage. The Boyer committee has recommended the repeal of this provision and an interdepartmental committee is examining the implications of the proposal - the implication not only in relation to the service of the Commonwealth, but to other corresponding services in the States. The Government will consider the problem carefully as soon as this work is completed. Let me emphasize that we do not reject that suggestion; we are investigating it so that we will know precisely what is involved in it. “ ^”t”r

As to the proposed relaxation of medical standards for the appointment of physically handicapped persons, it should be remembered that the Government and the Public Service Board are mindful of their responsibilities in the employment of the physically handicapped and a great deal is being done to provide employment in the Commonwealth service for such people including those who are no longer physically fit to carry out their previous duties. While the problems of the physically handicapped merit and do receive the Government’s sympathetic consideration, there are difficult problems of definition as well as the need to maintain an overall standard of medical fitness in a career service. The Public Service Board has established a separate committee, including medical authorities, to examine this question and the conclusions of this group will be considered by the Government as soon as they are available.

The committee has recommended that section 54 of the Public Service Act be amended so that the Public Service Board would be required to make a recommendation to the Governor-General on all appointments as permanent head of a department, and so that if the Governor-General appoints a person other than the person recommended by the board, the reasons for the rejection of the board’s recommendation should be reported to the Parliament. It has been my own consistent practice as Prime Minister, as I understand it was the practice of my predecessor, the late Mr. Chifley, to consult with the Chairman of the Public Service Board when appointments to positions of permanent head are required. This I regard as a most desirable practice, and one which I, therefore, hope will be continued by all future governments. The Government has not. however, thought it desirable, for reasons that will be crystal clear to all honorable members, to impose on the responsibilities of a government the duty of statins quite publicly and notoriously, why some nomination was not accepted.

Mr Calwell:

– I like the impertinence of the committee, making such a recommendation.

Mr MENZIES:

– I do not accept that. I think this was perhaps an over-theoretical approach to the matter. Anyhow, we do not agree with it and I gather, from what has been said, that honorable gentlemen opposite do not, either.

The Second Division of the Service includes officers who are required to exercise executive and professional functions in the more important positions. The Boyer committee recommends that the definition of this division should be amended to read “ administrative or executive functions and officers in training to exercise such functions “. The object of the recommendation is to improve the efficiency of the Service by a clearer definition of the “ administrative career “, which the committee believes can be achieved with the least dislocation by a modification of the Second Division.

Basically, the Boyer committee seeks a distinction between those positions which have an important policy advising element and those which have not; and therefore positions of a purely managerial or professional character, containing no policy advising elements, would remain in the Third Division. The Second Division would include all positions with an important policy-advising element, together with intermediate positions that might form part of an administrative career, and below them a training grade with positions suitable for administrative training.

The Boyer committee was concerned that senior officers in the Service are too immersed in routine work and do not get time for thinking, and in making its recom*mendation it had the very laudable objective of attracting and making the best use of officers with creative ability, and of encouraging self-improvement. The Government supports the objective of the Boyer committee. It feels, however, that the methods by which the committee sought to achieve this objective, namely the creation of an administrative civil service along the lines of the United Kingdom, would not be suitable in the present circumstances of the Australian civil service. The Government feels that the future requirements in staffing the Second Division of the Service can be achieved by more flexible recruitment provisions and the continuance of advanced training programmes, assistance to officers taking university courses, use of external training facilities such as the Australian

Administrative Staff College, use of the Australian universties - an increasingly important factor with the development of universities in Canberra - and overseas institutions for advanced specialist study, and other methods that may be available. This is the present approach by the Public Service Board and it will be intensified from time to time as the demands of the Public Service increase.

It will be clear to honorable members that the availability of an adequate number of people, trained and expert in functions of policy advising and policy administration, is so important that recruitment methods, including the composition of the Second and Third Divisions of the Service should be kept constantly under review and the Public Service Board has been asked to ensure that this is done.

Since the First World War, exservicemen have enjoyed the following concesssions: - First, preference in appointment over other candidates; secondly, eligibility for appointment up to age 51 years; thirdly, lower medical standards where the medical condition results from war service; and fourthly, reduced educational standards - in particular, the acceptance of a qualification of Intermediate examination standard for appointment to the Third Division. In the view of the Boyer committee, the efficiency of the Service will be approved if minimum educational standards for appointment are fixed and applied evenly at the various levels of recruitment. The legislation provides therefore that exservicemen will continue to receive preference in appointment as against other candidates who are not ex-servicemen, but, of course, only where there is equality in qualifications. They will retain eligibility for appointment up to age 51 and receive the same concessions as to medical standards as exist at present. But they will be required in other respects to qualify for appointment at the same standard and under the same conditions as other candidates. Clause 35 of the bill makes an exception in favour of ex-servicemen who have attained the minimum qualifications for appointment which have previously applied and who are applicants for appointment immediately before the date on which the new provisions of Division 4 of Part III. come into operation, which is on a date to be proclaimed. Such ex-servicemen will remain eligible for appointment by virtue of their existing qualifications.

Opportunity has been taken to include in the bill other amendments which have been found to be necessary for the effective administration of the Public Service. I will not refer to all of them as some are of a minor nature. One such amendment gives the board authority to determine conditions of service for the increasingly complex section of the Public Service on duty overseas, where conditions vary from post to post.

I conclude my remarks by saying - I am sure I say this on behalf of all honorable members - that in Australia we are fortunate to have a Public Service of great integrity, which is efficient and dedicated to its task of facilitating good government. It is certainly no reflection on the Service that the objective of the bill before the House is to provide machinery for attracting more good recruits to the Service. I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks that the establishment of proper standards of recruitment to the Service is essential to the development of a Public Service of the highest quality and integrity and is a first essential, in a democratic country, of good government. I conclude on this note and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 2986

DEFENCE FORCES SPECIAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1960

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide special retirement benefits for certain members of the Australian Regular Army.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– by leave - 1 move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide special retirement benefits to those “ other rank “ members of the Permanent Military Forces who are compulsorily retired in accordance with the Army re-organization programme. As honorable members are aware, benefits to retired members of the forces are provided by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, but in view of the compulsory termination of the services of these members the Government has given consideration to the question of providing additional compensation over and above the benefits already provided by that act. To this end the Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Allison to study this question and I desire here to pay tribute to the work of Sir John Allison and his colleagues.

The bill provides that the special benefits shall be paid to those other rank members who are discharged under the reorganization programme over a period of three months, or nine months in the case of members of the Ordnance Corps, and who shall be identified before the commencement of the programme as members to be so discharged.

The bill provides that a member who is discharged after less than six years’ service shall receive, in addition to the refund of contributions payable to him under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, a gratuity at the rate of £20 for each completed year of his service. This is the rate at which gratuity would have accrued to him if his services had not been compulsorily terminated and he had been permitted to serve until completion of six years’ service. A member who is discharged after six years’ and less than fifteen years’ service is entitled under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to a refund of his contributions and to a gratuity according to the period of his service. This bill provides that, in addition to that benefit, such a member will receive a special gratuity of one fortnight’s pay for each year of his service.

Special provision has been made for the member discharged with more than fifteen and less than twenty years’ service for pension, and who, under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act is entitled to a refund of contributions and a gratuity. It could normally be expected that such a member would have served until completion of twenty years’ service to qualify for a pension. This bill provides that such a member will receive a pension in accordance with the actual number of years of service as set out in the first schedule to the bill, and on payment of a special contribution. The bill further provides that if a member does not wish to pay the special contribution he will receive a reduced pension. The contributions for this pension will vary as between individual members, and will require a special calculation to be made in each case. The principle, on which the special contributions to be paid will be calculated by the Commonwealth Actuary, will be that the member will purchase, with this special contribution and the contributions he has paid in the past, the same proportion of the total pension he is now to receive as he would have purchased if he had retired in the normal course of events after twenty years’ service. Reduced pensions, where the member decides not to pay the special contribution, will be based on the same principle.

A member who has completed more than twenty years’ service for pension, and who is permitted to retire before completing his term of engagement, is entitled under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to a pension in accordance with the number of years of service completed at the date of retirement and on payment of additional contributions. It would be reasonable to expect that, had a member’s services not been compulsorily terminated, he would have served to the completion of his engagement. The bill recognizes this and provides that a member in this class can pay a special contribution to receive pension for the number of years of service he would have completed had he been permitted to serve to completion of his engagement. The bill also provides that in each case where a discharged member is entitled to pension, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board shall advise him of the full details of his maximum pension entitlement, the amount of the special contribution he has to pay to receive that pension, and the amount of the reduced pension he will receive if he does not pay the special contribution. Each member will thus be informed of his entitlements under the bill and may elect to receive a pension having regard to the amount of special contribution he wishes to pay.

The special pensions provided by this bill for members who have completed fifteen but less than twenty years’ service have made it necessary to modify the provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to take account of these pensions. The maximum pension of £500 10s. provided by that act to a member who is employed by the Commonwealth is reduced in this bill by the amount shown in the second schedule to the bill for each year by which the members’ service is short of twenty years.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Haylen) adjourned.

page 2988

WOOL USE PROMOTION BILL 1960

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wool Use Promotion. Act 1953- 1957.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of the Wool Use Promotion Bill and the other bills that I arn about to introduce is to give statutory recognition to the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council in a number of Commonwealth acts relating to wool and meat matters.

The formation of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council arose from a decision of the Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia in conference in July last to amalgamate as a single organization. The Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia were primary producer organizations established at the federal level to handle all matters connected with the welfare of the sheep and cattle industries respectively. The two bodies had a common secretariat and, to a considerable extent, common membership.

The Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia receive specific recognition in a number of Commonwealth acts relating to wool and meat matters and it is, therefore, necessary that the legislation concerned be amended to accord the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council similar statutory recognition in those matters. The bills also provide that the terms of office on statutory boards and committees of members nominated by the Australian Woolgrowers Council and the Graziers Federal Council of Australia shall not be affected by the amalgamation of the two organizations.

In addition to the matters I have outlined, the opportunity has been taken to effect machinery amendments in the Wool Use Promotion Bill and the Wool Research Bill. Clause 4 of the Wool Use Promotion Bill amends the present provisions relating to the banking arrangements of the Australian Wool Bureau in two ways. One of the proposed changes is the substitution of the words “ Reserve Bank of Australia “ for the words “ Commonwealth Bank of Australia “. This action merely reflects the change in the name of the central bank and does not effect any substantive change in law, since any reference to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in the present act has already to be read as a reference to the Reserve Bank of Australia, in accordance with section 7 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959. The second amendment that this clause proposes is to permit the Australian Wool Bureau to maintain an account or to place money on fixed deposit with the Reserve Bank or any bank approved by the Treasurer instead of as at present with the Reserve Bank only. This proposed change will bring the banking provisions for the Australian Wool Bureau into line with corresponding provisions in existing legislation relating to other statutory authorities, and is designed to make provision for more flexibility in the bureau’s banking arrangements.

The Wool Research Bill, in clause 3, provides for the omission of a sub-section of the Wool Research Act 1957, which is redundant since the matters to which it relates are now dealt with by the Wool Realization (Distribution of Profits) Act 1957. The deletion of the sub-section is in accord with the general practice of removing, wherever possible, redundant provisions in legislation.

I commend the bills to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2989

CATTLE AND BEEF RESEARCH

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Cattle and Beef Research Act 1960.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2989

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1953, as amended by the Meat Export Control Act 1960.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr. ADERMANN (Fisher- Minister for

Primary Industry) [2.56]. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2989

WOOL RESEARCH BILL 1960

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wool Research Act 1957.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

.- by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2989

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1960

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) 1957.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr. ADERMANN (Fisher- Minister for Primary Industry [2.58]. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2989

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1960

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1957.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The matters to be considered in this bill were explained in my second-reading speech on the Wool Use Promotion Bill 1960. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2989

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY BILL 1960

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Sir Garfield Barwick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to extend the period of office of Sir William Hudson as Commissioner, Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority, for three years. Sir

William was the first commissioner appointed under the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority Act. His initial appointment dated from 1st August, 1949, and was for a period of seven years. In 1956 he was appointed for a further term which, in accordance with the provisions of section 9 (2.) of the act, expires on 26th April, 1961, the day preceding his sixtyfifth birthday.

In the eleven years of Sir William Hudson’s leadership the construction of the Snowy scheme has won world-wide recognition. Many honorable members have visited the scheme and have seen at firsthand the spectacular progress which is being achieved. On his appointment Sir William’s first task was to establish an organization to carry out the development of the water resources of the Snowy Mountains for power production and irrigation. This involved a world-wide search for staff to investigate, design and construct one of the largest individual civil engineering undertakings ever attempted.

The project area comprised 3,000 square miles of unmapped mountain country. Geological and hydrological information was lacking, and much of the area was inaccessible except on foot. The initial difficulties were overcome, and the scheme’s first power was produced from the Guthega project in February, 1955, to be followed in May, 1958, by the completion of Eucumbene Dam, one of the largest of its type in the world. Tumut Pond Reservoir, formed by a 283-ft. high concrete arch dam, was placed in service during September, 1958. This reservoir forms the headpond for the 320,000 kilowatt Tumut 1 underground power station, which commenced operation in May, 1959. In June, 1959, the 14-mile Eucumbene-Tumut tunnel was completed. This tunnel, the longest ever constructed in Australia, has created a link between the coastal and inland river systems, and makes possible for the first time the conservation, on a large scale, of Australia’s eastern water resources for the benefit of the inland.

Construction of the second major group of works in the Upper Tumut area commenced late in June, 1958. These works are now substantially complete. The Murrumbidgee-Eucumbene diversion, in volving a large concrete gravity dam and 10i miles of tunnel, is within a few months of completion. Similarly, the ToomaTumut diversion, which comprises an earth and rockfill dam 220-ft. high and 9 miles of diversion tunnel will be in service towards the end of 1960. Progress on the 280,000 kilowatts Tumut 2 power station, the second underground power station in the Tumut valley, has progressed to a stage which will enable the first production of electricity within twelve months.

In the short space of ten years the authority has built up a team of highly skilled and experienced technical personnel. The organization has established a reputation both in Australia and overseas for enterprise and achievement. The authority’s future construction programme provides for work to be commenced in the immediate future on the second major phase of the scheme, i.e. the Snowy-Murray diversion. The following table illustrates the scope of the works to be commenced during the next three years: -

Construction of these projects will extend over the next sue to seven years and involve a total expenditure of close on £100,000,000. The Government is most anxious that the benefit of Sir William’s leadership should not be lost to the Snowy scheme during the initial stages of the new works, and it is therefore proposed in the bill now before the House to extend his period of office for a further three years. I feel sure that I express your views correctly when I say that I do not think that Australia could have made a better choice than Sir William Hudson when it selected him to assume the leadership of this great national undertaking. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Allan Fraser) adjourned.

page 2991

CRIMES BILL 1960

In committee: Consideration resumed from 15th November (vide page 2849).

Clause 5 (Operation of Act).

The CHAIRMAN:

– As that procedure appears to be acceptable to the committee, that course will be followed.

Clauses 6 to 13 - by leave - taken together.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- Clause 10 of the bill states -

Section eight a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) the words “ the law of the Commonwealth “ and inserting in their stead the words “ a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory”.

I invite the attention of the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) to .this clause because section 8a of the Crimes Act provides that a constable has the right to arrest without warrant if he has any reasonable grounds for believing that a person has committed an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, and that proceedings against the person by summons would not be effective. The amendment contained in the bill would widen this power and extend it to the Territories. I should like to have the advice of the Attorney-General on this matter. I feel that there is a real risk that an officious constable, say, in the Northern Territory, might arrest a person for supplying liquor to a native.

It is not difficult in an appropriate case to obtain a warrant for arrest. The necessity for going before a magistrate or a justice to obtain a warrant is often an effective deterrent against irresponsible arrest. I feel that power to arrest without a warrant should be limited to indictable offences. Everybody knows that constables in remote parts of New Guinea are men of very good character generally, but many of them have been recruited at short notice and with a limited amount of experience in these matters. Where their word is virtually law, they might be tempted to be a little over-enthusiastic and there might be a temptation to abuse their power mainly because of lack of experience. One can imagine that sort of thing happening in some of the wild parts of New Guinea in the case of men who have not had experience and do not appreciate the damage they could do.

An amendment to limit the power to arrest as I have suggested could not possibly interfere with the administration of justice. I do not think that for one moment, but if it is not made the present provision could lead to an unnecessary and unjustifiable arrest on a trivial charge by some native constable who might feel he has some kind of grudge against another member of a tribe. When a warrant has to be obtained from a magistrate, these abuses are not likely to happen. It would remove a difficulty and I ask the Attorney-General to have a look at the matter. I know this is one of the minor things in the bill but it could quite easily be covered. If the Attorney-General sees fit, he might even consider having the bill amended in another place.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- I ask the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) whether he would mind explaining the reason for the amendment proposed in clause 11, which I understand deals with the return or non-return of forfeitable goods. Section 9 sub-section (2.) paragraph (b) of the principal act reads as follows: - if the court is not so satisfied - shall order that the articles be delivered to such person as the Court is satisfied is entitled to the articles.

Apparently, the court may order that the articles be passed to somebody else. Would the Attorney-General state the reasons for the proposed amendment?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I have great sympathy with the point of view of the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) that an officious constable might do a great deal of harm and cause a great deal of heart-burning. But, with great respect to the honorable member, the remedy for this is not to forgo the very necessary change to section 8a of the act. The honorable member will no doubt notice that section 8 and section 8a together are less in area than the ordinary common law right of arrest which a constable has because a constable ordinarily can arrest on suspicion even though proceedings against the person by summons would be effective. In New South Wales we have been through the experience of an undue use of the power to arrest persons when summonses would have been quite effective. Section 8a contains less than the general power of common law by requiring that the constable shall not arrest without warrant on suspicion when proceedings by summons against the person concerned would be effective. That is a very substantial safeguard because the ordinary right of the citizen in respect of wrongful arrest - arrest beyond the power which the statute gives - is not taken away. The individual has a right of recourse against a constable who exceeds his authority under section 8a.

The amendment is necessary because this bill will extend the area of operation of the statute to the Territories and there is need, on occasions, for a constable on the mainland to arrest a person who has committed an offence in a Territory and who has left the Territory and come to the mainland. So, the two significant changes proposed are that a person may be apprehended in a Territory for a breach of the law of the Commonwealth, and that a person may be arrested in the Commonwealth for a breach of a law in a Territory. For the administration of the law, these two extensions are necessary. I have some sympathy with what the honorable member for Isaacs said because sometimes, in a young force, the constables have not been brought up to the point at which they use the utmost discretion. That is a factor in favour of the proposal.

Mr Whitlam:

– Even commissioned officers in the Territorial forces are young men.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– That may be. But young men are not necessarily lacking in a sense of responsibility. I would be surprised to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) assert that proposition. He has not joined the ranks of old people yet. The remedy for the position of which I am speaking is rather in a disciplined force, supervised by the Commissioner of Police, and steady instructions issued from time to time to prevent these very occasional excesses on the part of constables. Balancing it all together, there is no case for not amending the section to extend it as proposed. There is no ground for removing a most useful power to take a person without warrant when proceedings against that person by summons would not be effective. Such a person might be going - “ ducking “, to use a colloquialism. I would not be prepared to alter section 8a in any other respect, or to forgo the proposed amendment. I shall see that direction is given to constables in forces under my control that section 8a, with its limitations, must be carefully observed. I know that such an instruction had great effect in New South Wales some years ago when there was too frequent use of the power to arrest without warrant.

In answer to the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) I would say this: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit a magistrate, where he has not a case for forfeiture of an article, to order that it be handed back to the original owner. He may have before him a dispute as to who owns it. Sometimes, if there is no power to hand an article to the right person, if it is not forfeited, the parties are left with an argument somewhere else as to its disposal. The amendment is designed to save expense and litigation. The article which is the subject of a dispute may not have been taken from the possession of the owner. It may have been taken from the possession of a person who has taken it from the owner and there may be a contest before the court, if forfeiture is involved, as to who really owns the article. If the magistrate orders forfeiture, under the law at present he can direct that the article be dealt with under the forfeiture, but if he does not order it to be forfeited he can do nothing. This provision allows him to make an order as to the ultimate ownership.

Mr Bryant:

– It is not a case of putting it in suspense?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– No. The magistrate is able to decide the question then and there and the parties have the right of appeal against his decision.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- I want to refer to the clauses that have been discussed already in this short debate. I hope I can do so without unnecessarily covering ground that has already been covered.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Do you want to reopen the debate on clauses already passed?

Mr CAIRNS:

– No. I do not propose to cover ground that has already been covered by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth), the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant), and the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick). Clause 10 which amends section 8a of the principal act provides for the extension of the power of arrest to offences suspected of having been committed against the law of a Territory. I want to stress that it is not only in the case of offences that are not indictable that some special safeguard is needed here, but in relation to all offences and, in particular, offences that are indictable.

It is worse for a person to be wrongfully arrested for a serious offence than for a minor offence. I know that this power to arrest is specifically based upon common law which contains power more extensive than the power in this provision. This applies to a breach of the peace or an offence against the law of the Commonwealth which amounts to a breach of the peace, and this is less extensive than the common law power. I would like to ask the Attorney-General to carry into effect the suggestion that he made at the conclusion of his remarks - that instructions should be given by the Commonwealth that arrests should not be made when the persons concerned can be reached because their address is known and it is reasonably believed that they are not likely to disappear. We have known of many cases in which arrests have been made when it was quite clear that the offenders could have been reached and secured by summons. I think an instruction from the authorities concerned upon this point is most necessary.

Section 10 of the act provides -

If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting … he may grant a search warrant authorizing any constable named therein-

Then follows a description of what the constable may be authorized to do. Here again I am not suggesting that the bill can significantly limit this power. If the provision is going to operate at all, it must be substantially in this form. In other words, somebody must be in a position to authorize the granting of a warrant. But experience has shown that the issue of such a warrant by a justice of the peace is very often a completely informal matter. The police bring warrants to justices of the peace, who merely sign them without making an adequate inquiry into what is going on.

Mr Whitlam:

– Just a matter of form.

Mr CAIRNS:

– Yes, completely a matter of form. In the case of serious offences I believe that consideration should be given to granting authority under this provision only to magistrates, who in fact make careful inquiries into applications of this kind. Generally speaking, justices of the peace act as rubber stamps. To extend such great powers to persons who, very often, are given an office merely for the status that it provides is, I think, anachronistic. No longer is the justice of the peace the significant law-maker or law-enforcer that he once was.

Finally, I say that in relation to both these procedures, the power of arrest and the power of search, the Attorney-General believed that there was a safeguard in the provisions of the law enabling an aggrieved person to take action. This redress that is available to an aggrieved person is very much restricted in the legislation, as the person concerned does not have a right to go to a court. The relevant section of the act, which I think is section 85, says that such a right is in the hands of the Governor-General in Council.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– That is limited to the other sections; it does not touch this one.

Mr CAIRNS:

– That being so, those are the only points that I wanted to make in relation to these clauses.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– Let me say, in answer to the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns), that I will ask my colleague, the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) to issue a similar instruction, because I think the point is worth emphasizing.

I cannot agree that we should restrict the power to which the honorable member referred to magistrates, because there are not sufficient of them in places where a warrant may be needed quickly. For my part, when a justice of the peace is sought to be appointed I take some care to ensure that a suitable appointment is made. I am quite sure that if I or any of the State Attorneys-General received information about a justice of the peace treating this kind of procedure as a mere formality, the person concerned would be swiftly dealt with. I am not inclined to accept the assertion that these men, who are men of honour and good character, treat lightly a request for a search warrant. If they are detected in doing so, they should be dealt with.

Clauses agreed to.

Proposed new clause.

Section proposed to be amended - “ 12a. - (1.) Any proceeding in respect of an offence against this Act, although declared indictable, may, with the consent of the defendant, be heard and determined by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. (2.) A Court of Summary Jurisdiction may, if it thinks fit, upon the request of the prosecutor, hear and determine any proceeding in respect of an offence against this Act, although declared to be indictable, if the offence relates to property the value of which does not exceed Fifty pounds. (3.) Where an offence is dealt with under this section the Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year and, in its discretion, impose a pecuniary penalty not exceeding One hundred pounds in addition to or in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment.”

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- “ 13a. Section twelve a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2.).”.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those who commit offences which this bill and the principal act describe as indictable shall be tried by jury. This would cure one of the six specific faults which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) listed in the amendment which he proposed at the second-reading stage, namely, that the bill failed to uphold the principle of trial by jury for all offences under the bill and the act.

Section 80 of the Constitution says that trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury. We have by-passed that provision. This has proved a deception and a disappointment to the Australian people. It is one of the very few safeguards that exist in the Constitution, and it has been rendered completely nugatory by the Parliament providing that many offences, however serious in character, and however severe the penalties they attract, shall be tried summarily. The intention of the Constitution was, of course, that any serious crime should be tried by jury, and that any person guilty of such a crime should be punished only after conviction by a jury. We have simply by-passed this principle in one piece of legislation after another passed by this Parliament. One particularly clever device is in sub-section (2.) of section 12a of the principal act, which provides -

A Court of Summary Jurisdiction may, if it thinks fit, upon the request of the prosecutor, hear and determine any proceeding in respect of an offence against this Act, although declared to be indictable, if the offence relates to property the value of which does not exceed Fifty pounds.

The Labour Party does not object to offences which are declared to be indictable under the act being tried summarily if the accused so desires. The accused may desire a summary trial instead of a trial by jury in order to have a swifter trial or a less expensive one, or so that he may be liable to a lesser penalty, a magistrate having narrower powers to impose penalties than a judge. We do object, however, to a jury trial being denied to a person simply because the property involved in the offence is worth no more than £50.

The full gravity of the situation can be seen when one realizes that a person does not have to be put on trial in respect of all the property which might be the subject of an offence which he is believed to have committed. He need be put on trial in respect of only some of the property, and if that portion of the property is worth less than £50, he can be tried by a magistrate. If he is convicted or sentenced in a manner which he feels is unjust, he can then appeal to a single judge, who, in most of the States would be a district court or county court judge. That means that he has not the protection of a jury or of a Supreme Court. The Opposition’s amendment will permit this anomaly to be cured. I do not know whether the Attorney-General, in dealing with the Opposition’s amendment, will refer to the amendment concerning a new clause 13a which he has circulated.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I think it would be better to talk about the two together.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The AttorneyGeneral has circulated an amendment which would restrict trial by jury to the offences of treason, treachery, sabotage, espionage and serious breach of official secrets. We on this side of the committee do not feel that that would be a sufficient safeguard. Section 7 of the principal act states -

Any person who attempts to commit any offence . . shall be guilty of an offence and shall be punishable as if the attempted offence had been committed.

The consequence is that if a person attempted to commit treason, treachery, sabotage, espionage or a serious breach of official secrets, he would have no guarantee of trial by jury.

Mr Snedden:

– I think he would.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I said I thought he would. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition looks at the way the proposed amendment reads, he will see that.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The amendment which the Opposition has moved will remove any doubt on the matter. I think that there is some doubt, and I am fortified in that view by the answer’ that the AttorneyGeneral gave me on Tuesday. When he was addressing the committee and dealing with indictable offences, I said -

Your amendment would not catch an attempt to commit such an offence.

He replied -

That may be right.

The matter ought to be put beyond doubt, Sir.

Furthermore, there are many offences beside the five serious kinds which will be introduced or newly enunciated by this bill which are in the act also. A very great number of offences is listed in the act and declared to be indictable. Many of them carry reference to and relate to property which is worth £50 or less. Obviously, of course, attempts to commit any of these crimes such as serious breach of official secrets, espionage or sabotage may relate to such property, and we can think of cases in which treachery or treason would relate to property worth £50 or less. Among the other offences in respect of which property worth £50 or less very clearly would be concerned are the offences listed in sections 32, 33 and 37 of the principal act, which relate to judicial corruption, official corruption and the subornation of witnesses. In each instance, the word “ property “ is used, and if the property to which an offence related were worth £50 or less, the person who had taken the property with the improper purpose could be tried summarily and would have no right to trial by jury. One could in fact have an extraordinary position in which a federal judge - even the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia - could be tried by a magistrate for judicial corruption.

Then there are sections 52 to 60 inclusive, which deal with coinage, section 69, which deals with the making of special paper - presumably paper of the type which is used for banknotes or Commonwealth bonds - and section 86, which deals with conspiracy to defeat various Commonwealth laws. All _the crimes mentioned in these provisions are serious crimes, Sir. They all can relate to property. In most cases where coinage or paper was concerned, they would relate to property worth £50 or less.

We feel that in all these matters we should ensure that in respect of an offence which is said to be indictable, the accused person should have the right to trial by jury. If the Attorney-General is to make a proper review of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, this is an opportunity for him to see that in respect of this legislation that right to trial by jury is preserved by expunging from the statute-book that provision in section 12a of the principal act which has by-passed the provisions of section 80 of the Australian Constitution and enabled us to deceive our citizens and deprive them of the rights which they were intended to have.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

.- Mr. Chairman, section 80 of the Australian Constitution provides that the trial on indictment of offences shall be before a jury. Our forefathers knew what language meant, and although the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) says that they thought something different, the High Court of Australia has said quite plainly that those words mean what they say, and that when you try a man on indictment you must try him before a jury. There has been no bypassing of the constitutional provision at all. All that has happened is that the Constitution did not go any further than our forefathers meant it to go. It did not go as far as would suit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Section 12a of the principal act contains three significant sub-sections. Sub-section (1.) provides -

Any proceeding in respect of an offence against this Act, although declared indictable, may, with the consent of the defendant, be heard and determined by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

That is a most useful provision, because a jury trial can at times be a very doubtful benefit to a man. There are many, many people who would very much rather face a magistrate who could inflict a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or a pecuniary penalty, and who would rather pay for legal assistance at a rate appropriate to trial before a magistrate. In addition, there is a very great magisterial system throughout Australia. It is highly developed and highly responsible and, as far as I know, very well respected, and it gives great service to the community.

Sub-section (2.) of section 12a of the principal act reads -

A Court of Summary Jurisdiction may, if it thinks fit,-

So you have interposed the judicial discretion oi the magistrate - upon the request of the prosecutor, hear and determine any proceeding in respect of an offence against this Act, although declared to be indictable, if the offence relates to property the value of which does not exceed Fifty pounds.

The community, of course, has somewhat of an interest in the cost of the administration of the law. This provision states that an offence which a magistrate thinks can fairly be tried summarily may be so tried at the request of the prosecutor if the offence relates only to property worth £50 and no more. A similar provision is present in State legislation, too. Both Victoria and New South Wales have long had identical provisions. Queensland has a provision that dates back, I think, to 1898, but in that instance the amount is £5 instead of £50. No doubt, one of these days the Queensland Attorney-General will look at his money values and come up nearer to £50.

This is an old and well-entrenched principle in the law, and I think that we should do the community in general and many accused people in particular a great disservice if we took away the power of the prosecutor to ask and of the magistrate to decide that a case be determined summarily. A man who is accused, particularly for the first time, even of an offence relating to a small amount of property, is not always in an emotional state in which he can decide quite what is best for himself, and it would not be right for a man to be able to put himself and the community to the expense of a jury trial in circumstances in which a magistrate thought it proper to try a case summarily. The law does not require a provision that would permit that. In short, the sub-section allows a magistrate to take account of all the circumstances. This applies also to the prosecutor. I do not know why we should always think that the prosecution is without responsibility. Before a case is launched under the federal scheme, the papers have filtered through quite a few hands. It is not like the procedure in the States, where very often the matter is determined in the police station. With a Commonwealth offence, the papers filter through the department, and I think it very important to bear that in mind.

In connexion with the serious offences proposed under the bill, it seemed to me when I first looked at the matter that it was highly unlikely that a case of treason or treachery would relate to property at all and certainly not to property of a value of less than £50. That did not seem to me to be practical. With respect to sabotage, it seemed to me that though it was possible it was somewhat unlikely that such offence would be committed with property of very small value. However, as the suggestion was made that this was a possibility, I thought it right to put the question beyond doubt. As honorable members well know, my disposition is not to leave a matter in doubt, if I can avoid doing so. I follow this course even at the risk of the gibe that I have changed my mind or brought along an amendment. I thought the right thing to do was to provide that the serious offences of treason, treachery, sabotage and espionage, which was dealing in secrets with intent to hurt the country, should be made punishable on indictment in every instance and that they should not be dealt with by a magistrate even by “consent but should be dealt with by a jury. That is the first amendment that the Government proposes, to ensure that the serious offences will be tried only before a jury.

The other two offences which come under the bill, as distinct from existing offences, relate to the taking of official secrets with an intent to harm the country or by carelessness. The punishment in the latter case is six months and in the former the maximum is two years. If by some chance it could be said that there is a value on the secret so that the stealing of the secret relates to property, which I much doubt, it seemed to me fair enough that section 12a (2.) should be allowed to operate and if a magistrate thought that in the circumstances it was right to try the offence, when the maximum punishment would be one year instead of two years, he should be allowed to do so.

It seemed to me that the amendment proposed by the Opposition went too far and that the proposal I made was adequate in the circumstances. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that attempts to commit these offences would not be caught up. It is very true that when he asked me this by interjection, I said that he may be right, being of a cautious turn of mind. However, when I had a look at the provision later I saw that what was provided was that offences against the section nominated, as provided in my first amendment, were punishable only on indictment. If honorable members turn to the attempt provisions, they will see that attempt is punishable as if the principal offence had been committed. That seems to me to make it fairly clear that attempts are caught up and will be tried only on indictment. It seemed to me that there was no need to make any separate provision.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- One of the earlier criticisms of the proposal of the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) was that it would deny the right of trial by jury for very serious offences. I was rather amazed to hear the Attorney-General argue that he measures the cost of administration against the right which citizens at least believed they possessed to decide themselves whether they would have trial by jury on indictable offences. Surely when the liberty of the citizen is at stake, the question of costs should not be the determining factor. I would not argue the matter of law with the Attorney-General in respect of whether it is an advantage to an accused person to be tried summarily by a magistrate or to be tried before a jury on indictment, but surely the accused should have the right to make the choice and this right should not be given to any one else.

I cannot find myself in agreement with the Attorney-General on this matter. It is quite true that, as a result of strong opinion expressed outside the Parliament by members of the legal fraternity and others, the Attorney-General has to some degree weakened in his original intention of denying trial by jury on a number of very serious offences; but he has not gone far enough. Many items are considered to be of a value of less than £50. I know that all indictable offences are not of the same seriousness, that the degree of seriousness varies, but to the citizen who must face the charge, they are all serious. If he believes that his rights, which he thought were guaranteed under the Constitution, would be better served by being tried before a jury Instead of being dealt with summarily by a magistrate, surely he should make the choice. The Government should not put this on the basis that to go as far as the Opposition proposes in its amendment would add to the cost of administration. What amount would be involved? How frequently does the Government expect that people will be arraigned on these charges? If it is a matter that will only infrequently arise, how could the cost be considerable? I do not believe that any member of the Opposition could accept the argument advanced by the AttorneyGeneral. We believe that every citizen charged with an indictable offence is entitled to trial by jury, and therefore we reject the arguments now advanced.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I did not say and did not mean to say that the question of expense was a determining factor. The hypothesis on which we must work is that the circumstances are such that the magistrate who knows all the facts may think it would be proper to try the case summarily. He has considered both sides and thinks it would be right to try it summarily, if the property involved in the offence is valued at less than £50. This is a provision of which both the States and the Commonwealth have had long experience, and I must say that I have never heard it complained of and it has certainly not been regarded as a denial of any fundamental right.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

.- I was about to say what the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) has just said. I did not hear him say that this was a question of cost. It was quite the contrary. He said that if a person wishes to avoid trial by jury, he ought to be entitled to do so. This deals with a different sub-section. Sub-section (2.) gives the right to a magistrate, if he thinks it fit upon the request of the prosecutor. Of course, the magistrates must be considered in the light of the magistracy as a whole. I think it fair to say, as the Attorney-General did, that the magistracy has a high reputation. When an application is made, the magistrate has upon him a duty to consider the matter and to reach a decision as to whether he thinks it fit. If a person were charged with a breach of the provision dealing with secrets and the actual paper on which the secret was written had a value of 3d. or less, the magistrate would not regard this as an offence relating to property of a value of less than £50. The magistrate would regard this as an offence relating to a secret. I have no doubt whatever that the magistrate having considered the matter, and, having come to that conclusion, would decide, as he ought to do, in the exercise of his judicial function. I feel that sub-section (2.) ought to remain. I feel that what the Opposition suggests is to convert the exception to the general. Sub-section (2.) must remain because of the wide range of the act as a whole. I therefore oppose the proposal by the Opposition to delete it.

I know that when the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) suggested that the accused should always have the choice of trial by jury, he was referring to some of the offences included in the amending bill, but to say, as a general statement, that the accused should always have the choice of trial by jury is not a real proposition. For example, if we take the argument reductio ad absurdum, a person who is picked up on Thursday night and charged with drunkenness in the police court on Friday morning could elect to have a trial by jury. That is obviously absurd. I know the honorable member for East Sydney did not intend anything like this consequence to flow from what he said. I know that he was referring only to a narrow section, but, considering the act as a whole, I think that sub-section (2.) should remain.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- There are three sub-sections to section 12a, which is the section that we seek to amend. The first sub-section provides that an offence, although declared to be indictable, may be tried by a magistrate if the accused consents. The second provides that an offence, although declared to be indictable, can be tried by a magistrate if the prosecutor asks for it and if the property involved is worth £50 or less.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– No; when the magistrate says it is right.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have read the full text of the provision, and we object to that sub-section. The concluding sub-section, which limits the amount of the fine or the term of imprisonment which the magistrate can impose if he hears the case, either with or without the consent of the accused, is another sub-section to which we do not object.

These are serious crimes. They are not trivial crimes such as those to which the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) referred. They are all serious. Some are declared by the act to be indictable and punishable by terms of some years’ imprisonment, even if the property involved is worth £50 or less, and of course £50 to-day is worth much less than it was when the provision was made in 1914. They all have some unpatriotic or objectionable connotation. A man may be convicted by a magistrate for counterfeiting or conspiracy or corruption. We do not object to these crimes, however serious, being tried by a magistrate if, in accordance with sub-section (1.) of section 12a, the accused consents. What we do object to is his being tried by a magistrate for these crimes if the prosecution wants it and irrespective of what the accused wants. We do not believe that the prosecution in these cases should have the right of veto, or that the magistrate should be able to abridge an accused person’s rights in this regard. We say that if these serious crimes are being tried, the accused person should have the right of trial by jury if he wants it. If he is prepared to accept the delay and expense, and to risk a heavier sentence, that is his affair, and he should not be deprived of his right.

There are two other comments I wish to make. The Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) said that when this matter was first brought to his notice - it had not been before we mentioned it to him - he did not see how property worth £50 or less could relate to the offences of treason or treachery. Let me give one clear example. A code book might be worth less than £50, but it could be the subject of the offence of treason or treachery. However, the Attorney-General has covered that position. He did not think it was necessary to do so, but he has done it for good measure. I am merely pointing out how the original provision could have applied. It is as well that he has rectified the position.

The Attorney-General also told us that the founding fathers knew what they were about, that they knew what they wanted even though I was not satisfied with it. In fact, the opinion that I have expressed was held by a former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir John Latham, who was the last AttorneyGeneral to make considerable amendments to this act. The members of the Constitutional Review Committee, which consisted of equal numbers of members of the Government parties and the Labour Party, will recollect that Sir John Latham gave evidence on this very section 80 of the Constitution and strongly urged that it should be amended. He suggested that it was one amendment that the people certainly would wholeheartedly support. The whole business turns on the phrase in the Constitution “ on indictment “, and the various statutes which have used the word “ indictable “. The neat point has been taken that if a statute says an offence is indictable it has not used the term “ on indictment “, which is used in the Constitution, and therefore there is no guarantee of trial by jury, as there has to be with respect to any offence which is tried on indictment. Let me refer briefly to what Sir John Latham said in connexion with this matter. He said1 -

The idea was that serious offences should be tried by jury. That is the object of section 80. It has completely failed to have any effect whatever. … If the Parliament does not say it is on indictment then it can be tried by a magistrate or single judge, whatever the penalty is. That was not the intention. The intention was that serious offences prosecuted on indictment should be tried before a jury.

He said that at present section 80 meant nothing and went on to say -

There is a unanimous court decision of six judges that the Parliament may provide for a trial on indictment or otherwise, as it elects. Justices Dixon and Evatt, in a later case, tried to get out of that but it is very difficult to get out of it.

With great respect I agree with what Sir John Latham said on this matter even if the learned Attorney-General does not.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- I cannot see how the possession of a code book could be held to be an offence relating to property, and if my contention is correct, the example mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) would scarcely apply. The offence with which the accused would be charged would be one relating to treachery or some other serious crime, not of being in possession of a code book costing only about 4s. 3d.

I should like to mention one matter for the consideration of the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick). It is something entirely apart from the points raised so far. In his proposed amendment, the AttorneyGeneral refers specifically to sub-sections (2.) and (5.) of proposed new section 79 of the act which specify offences punishable only on indictment. I remind him that in sub-section (3.) of proposed new section 79 mention is made of an offence which is not declared to be an indictable offence. It is declared merely to be an offence. The sub-section reads -

If a person communicates a prescribed sketch, plan, photograph … or permits a person to have access to it, he shall be guilty of an offence.

The penalty named for that offence is imprisonment for two years. Sub-section (6.) provides that if a person receives any sketch, plan, and so on, knowing, or having reasonable ground to believe, that it is communicated to him in contravention of subsection (3.) he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves certain things. The penalty prescribed there is imprisonment for two years. As the proposed amendment stands those offences, not being indictable, so far as I can see could be tried summarily. I suggest, for the consideration of the Attorney-General, that any offence which attracts a penalty of two years’ imprisonment should be made indictable.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I realize that I am only a layman in this argument. I am, therefore, not going to argue the law, but I am going to deal with the common sense of the situation. For the life of me I cannot understand how the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) confused what I said in regard to this matter. Until he mentioned it I would not have been aware that drunkenness is an indictable offence. If, as a member of the legal profession, he can advance this as some sort of argument, I suppose that I must, in some degree, accept it. But I repeat that, in considering the Opposition’s amendment, the Attorney-General said you have to keep in mind the cost of the administration. So the question of whether the accused shall be given the protection which the great majority of Australian people believe he should have - that of making a choice as to whether, on a serious offence, he has the right to go before a jury or to have the case heard summarily by a magistrate - is, by the action of the Attorney-General, to be denied him purely on the basis that there could be excessive cost of administration if this right were to be extended as far as the Opposition proposes it might be extended.

I put this case to the Attorney-General: Let us assume that he was representing an accused who had been charged with an indictable offence which did not involve an article of a value in excess of £50, and he advised his client that it was advisable for him not to have his offence tried before a magistrate, but to go before a jury. According to what the Attorney-General now proposes the accused, despite the advice of his legal adviser, if the prosecutor - who of all people is out to get a conviction - makes application to the magistrate, the accused can then be tried summarily by the magistrate and not have the right of trial by jury. I think this is a distinct infringement of what I regard as the civil rights of all Australian citizens. The lawyers can argue what has been the situation since 1898 or some previous year, but the Australian people themselves believe that the Australian citizen has this right and I think that they will be surprised to learn that they do not possess, in the case of very serious offences upon which they can be indicted, the right to trial by jury.

Mr Snedden:

– Which are the offences upon which they have not the right to trial by jury?

Mr WARD:

– Corruption, conspiracy, counterfeiting and forging. There could be quite a number of indictable offences which might involve an article of less than £50 in value, and evidently in respect of these very serious offences the accused is not to be given the choice of being tried before a jury. I think it is an infringement of the rights of the people. I maintain that the Opposition’s attitude in this matter is correct and that, however the case may be argued, the Government, if it persists in its present attitude, is obviously seeking to take away from certain Australian citizens, who may find themselves involved in such serious offences, the right of trial by jury.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- Briefly, from the layman’s point of view, I want to seek to clarify the question of the issues raised by the Opposition. I take it that there are two. First, there is a difference between section 80 of the Constitution and the provision of this bill under consideration. It does not necessarily follow that the provision will get a trial by jury for every person who is charged on indictment. The difference is based on the opinion of persons like the Attorney-General and the former Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of Australia, whose opinion was quoted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). Surely this committee, if it were seriously considering this matter, would take note of the apparent conflict of opinion between two such persons as the AttorneyGeneral and Sir John Latham, a former Chief Justice and a former AttorneyGeneral of this Commonwealth, on that point. Looking at it from the commonsense point of view, I think that some answer to that conflict of opinion in the circumstances is called for. The second point I wish to make-

Mr Ward:

– Do you think Sir John Latham read his books?

Mr CAIRNS:

– I do not know whether he is up to date on his reading, but I think that ai one stage he read them. The AttorneyGeneral can tell us about it if he wishes to do so.

Mr Whitlam:

– He vouchsafed the opinion that he knows some that Sir John did not read.

Mr CAIRNS:

– When lawyers disagree there is really trouble. The other point I wish to make clear in relation to the Opposition’s case - and obviously the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) is not too clear on it, because he had to ask a few moments ago what kind of serious offences would not be punishable on indictment - is that obviously section 12a (2.) of the act indicates that some very serious offences could be punishable by a magistrate in the court.

Mr Snedden:

– What is the relevant section of the Crimes Act?

Mr CAIRNS:

– It is section 12a (2.). lt reads -

A Court of Summary Jurisdiction-

Perhaps I could take it a word at a time - may. if it thinks fit, upon the request of the prosecutor, hear and determine any proceeding in respect of an offence against this Act, although declared to be indictable, if the offence relates to property the value of which does not exceed Fifty pounds.

What are some of the offences under this act? There are the offences of counterfeiting, forgery, corruption, sabotage and conspiracy. In fact, all of those offences, which are punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment, can, under this section, be dealt with by a magistrate whose power to inflict a penalty is limited to imprisonment for twelve months. These are serious offences. Can anybody dispute it? The honorable member for Bruce is apparently satisfied. The point that the Opposition makes it that because of the serious nature of these offences the accused person should have the right to elect how he should be tried. This power should not rest in the hands of a magistrate. It is quite apart from the question whether the magistrates consist of a body of men who are highly respected. What the Opposition stands for here is the right of the individual charged, and assumed at that stage to be completely innocent of the crime with which he is charged, to elect how he shall be tried. It is not a matter of whether he might be better situated in the hands of a magistrate than in the hands of a jury, or of whether his defence will cost considerably less in a magistrate’s court than in another court. It is not a matter of whether the trial will cost more or less in one place than in another. It is a matter of the right of the individual - in serious offences at least - to elect how the charge will be determined. That is where the Opposition stands and, from a common sense point of view, I think it is clear enough. An answer far better than the ones we have had from the Government is called for on this matter.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I would like to answer the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt) who said these offences to which he called attention should be made indictable. The Acts Interpretation Act makes every offence for which the punishment is more than six months’ imprisonment an indictable offence. For the rest, the provisions of section 12a (2.) have been in the act since 1926. It was well back in the last century when British-speaking countries began to try criminal offences summarily before magistrates. This is an old and wellestablished principle. This procedure was not adopted solely in the interests of the prosecution; it was adopted also in the interests of accused persons so that they could get their charges over and done with by being tried fairly by magistrates.

This provision has been in operation in the States for a long time, and it has been in operation in the Commonwealth since 1926. It is amusing that the Labour Party has suddenly found that it exists and has decided to make this the occasion for an attack on that law. 1 had considered these matters beforehand, and I am not prepared to take out of section 12a all the offences mentioned in the act. I was prepared - I still am prepared - to take out those serious matters which I still claim have no relation to property, particularly property of a monetary value. I have done so in my second amendment.

I move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 33

Majority

26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put -

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

34 59

25

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Sir Garfield Barwick) proposed -

That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- “ 13a. Section twelve a of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - (4.) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, an offence against section twentyfour, twenty-four aa, twenty-four ab or seventyeight, or sub-section (2.) or (5.) of section seventy-nine, of this Act is punishable only on indictment.’.”.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

That the proposed new clause be amended by omitting from sub-section (4.), “ or seventyeight, or sub-section (2.) or (5.) of section seventy-nine of this Act “, and inserting “ thirtytwo, thirty-three, thirty-seven, fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, sixty, sixty-nine or seventy-eight, or subsection (2.) or (5.) of section seventy-nine, or section eighty-six of this Act or an attempt to commit any offence against the foregoing sections “.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– This is in substance the amendment which has just been thrown out.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Attorney-General says that this is in substance the amendment which has just been thrown out, but that is not so, Sir. There are many more offences which are declared indictable in the act than are mentioned in the amendment to the Attorney-General’s amendment that I have just moved. We have taken this method of illustrating the inadequacies of the Crimes Act as it will be left by the Attorney-General’s amendment, and we have directed attention to offences all of which are serious in their nature and which, if tried by jury, and if the accused is convicted by a jury, can attract severe penalties indeed. I referred to most of them in my remarks in support of the Opposition’s previous amendment. But let me deal in greater detail with the first three of them.

Section 32 refers to judicial corruption, and conviction under it attracts a maximum sentence of imprisonment for ten years. Section 33 refers to official corruption and deals with persons such as judges who are sitting as royal commissioners. Conviction under this section also attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for ten years. Section 37 refers to corruption of witnesses, and conviction here attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. These are three clear cases where the value of the property concerned is of the essence of the offence, because each of those offences is committed if a judge, or a judge not acting judicially, or a Commonwealth officer, or a witness, corruptly -

  1. . receives, or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property . . .

And so on. If that property is worth £50 or less the accused person can be tried summarily if the prosecution asks for that course to be taken, and if the magistrate thinks fit. It is true that in those circumstances the magistrate can impose a sentence of imprisonment for a maximum of only one year and/ or a fine to a maximum of £100; but the consequences, Sir, of even a fine of £5 or imprisonment for one day can be catastrophic, because the judge, the judicial officer or the Commonwealth officer is obviously deprived of his appointment or his office and his whole reputation can be ruined. This can occur to him against his will. We have made it quite plain in the last hour that we do not object to a person’s having the benefit of a summary trial for any of those offences if he desires it, and consents to that course; but what we do object to is a person’s being tried for one of those serious offences, which we say are indictable, by a magistrate, if the offence relates to property worth £50 or less. The property worth £50 or less is not the big thing at stake when one is determining issues of judicial or official corruption, or the corruption of witnesses.

I think that these three sections show very clearly that this act is out of date. In 1926 property worth £50 was equivalent to property now worth £150 or £200. Even so, I would not think it would have been justified at that time - and still less is it justified now - to have summary trial of persons accused of such serious crimes.

The other crimes in the sections which I have listed concern coinage. Two of those offences can attract penalties of imprisonment for ten years and three of them penalties of imprisonment for seven years. Section 69 refers to the making of special paper, and this of course relates to bank notes and bonds. An offence under this section can attract a penalty of imprisonment for four years.

The final point is this: Section 86 deals with conspiracy and it can attract a penalty of three years’ imprisonment. All these are serious crimes. The names themselves are enough to damn a man in his profession and in the community. Corruption, counterfeiting and conspiracy cannot be lightly dismissed but a person can be convicted of any of them if an offence relates to property worth £50 or less. He may be so convicted if the prosecution seeks that course and the magistrate thinks fit.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– This matter has been discussed previously, and accordingly I move -

That the question be now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The question is: “ That the question be now put “. All those in favour say, “Aye “; to the contrary, “ No “. As honorable members are calling “ No “, the committee will divide. (The bells being rung) -

Mr Reynolds:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) indicated to the Chair that he proposed to speak. Is there any provision to prevent the gagging of a member who has indicated his intention to speak and who is not allowed the call?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance in the point of order. The Attorney-General was quite in order in moving that the question be put.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You called me, Mr. Temporary Chairman, and the Attorney-General moved the gag.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I did not call the honorable member. I was reading the terms of the question to the committee.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 34

Majority

25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) stand part of the proposed new clause.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 33

Majority 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of proposed new clause negatived.

The question is -

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Sir Garfield Barwick’s amendment) be so inserted.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I oppose the proposed new clause for reasons which I am sure the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) would like to hear. Under this proposal the Chief Justice of Papua and New Guinea could be charged with having committed the offence of judicial corruption under the act. He would then be dragged by the hair of the head in front of a district officer or even an assistant district officer. He would be thrown into the dock, the allegations would be heard and, with all the assumed wisdom possible, the officer could declare that he had found the charge proven. This position is absolutely ludicrous. It is ridiculous that we should allow such a serious charge as this to be dealt with in such a haphazard way.

The position is bad enough in relation to mainland offences. Here, the person hearing the charge has to be a magistrate. It is bad enough to have a magistrate inquiring into allegations of judicial corruption levelled against a judge. How much worse is it when the allegations are to be inquired into by an assistant district officer! While we agree that the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General is better than the existing provision, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has pointed out, the improvement, important though it is, does not go far enough. He has shown how the act, as amended by the clause just passed, will still allow certain serious injustices to occur. He has pointed out that it will be possible for a magistrate to inquire into and determine the accuracy or otherwise of an allegation of judicial corruption against a judge. Suppose that some one saw the Chief Justice with a new fountain pen and said, “Ah! I think that that last decision that he made was crook. I bet that the bloke who got out of the charge gave that gold pen to him “. So he lays a complaint. Under the act as it now stands any private person can lay a complaint against any other person.

Mr Chresby:

– That has always been possible under common law.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There is the learned Queen’s Counsel again! He says that this has always been common law. If some native rushes up and says, in pidgin English, that Chief Justice Mann has had a fountain pen given to him in order to corrupt his decision in a case between planter “ X “ and houseboy “ J “, and lays a charge against the Chief Justice for a breach of that section of the act which deals with judicial corruption, the case must then be proceeded with. It would be quite possible for the case to be heard by a district officer and a decision given by him against the Chief Justice.

Let us take the case of coinage offences. It is quite possible that many offences in relation to the coinage would concern property worth less than £50. This serious crime, carrying a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment, could be tried by a district officer. The position is too absurd. I do not share the view of some people who say that because the Attorney-General has accepted certain amendments to his original legislation, he did not know what he was talking about when he prepared the bill.

Mr Ward:

– You told that to me privately.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did nothing of the kind. I do not agree with those people who say that the Attorney-General is showing weakness and a lack of understanding of the issues involved simply because he has agreed to amend the bill. I applaud him for his action. But I ask him to see the wisdom of this proposal and to set a further example by saying, “ I can see the value of the proposal and I will accept it “.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– If I thought that there was any reality in the proposal of the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) of course I would accept it. But what he has said is outside the bounds of all good sense and possibility. This matter has had a very full discussion and I move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 49

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- “ 13b. Section thirteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

– (1.) Proceedings in respect of any offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by the Attorney-General or with the consent of the Attorney-General or of a person thereto authorized in writing by the Attorney-General.’.”

In order to make this amendment more acceptable to the Government, I would be prepared to accept a further sub-section, in the terms of proposed new sub-section (2.) of Government amendment No. 10, which has been circulated. It is in these terms: - (2.) Notwithstanding that consent has not been obtained as provided by the last preceding subsection -

  1. a person may be arrested for an offence referred to in that sub-section; or
  2. a warrant for the arrest of a person for such an offence may be issued and executed, and he may be charged, and may be remanded in custody or on bail, but -
  3. no further proceedings shall be taken until that consent has been obtained; and
  4. he shall be discharged if proceedings are not continued within a reasonable time ‘.

Section 13 of the principal act, which it is proposed to replace, reads as follows: -

Unless the contrary intention appears in the Act or regulation creating the offence, any person may -

institute proceedings for the commitment for trial of any person in respect of any indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth; or

institute proceedings for the summary conviction of any person in respect of any offence against the law of the Commonwealth punishable on summary conviction.

The Opposition considers it intolerable that prosecutions for breaches of Commonwealth law may be instituted by individuals. We believe that offences against Commonwealth law are of an official nature, and that any prosecution in respect of them should be officially endorsed. We believe that it is wrong that an employer or a rival in commerce or-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Love.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Or love could institute a prosecution for offences against Commonwealth law. There is opportunity in such a system for malice and malpractice. If an offence against the Commonwealth has been committed, or if it is suspected that one has been committed, the Commonwealth itself should take the initiative in prosecuting either summarily or on indictment. The Commonwealth may not know of the offence, but if it hears of it, it should then be the body to take the initiative. The amendment which we propose provides that the Attorney-General can do so, or a person authorized in writing by the AttorneyGeneral. It is readily conceded that the Attorney-General would be cluttered up with paper work if he had to approve the institution of every prosecution for offences against Commonwealth law. But it should be possible for him to find qualified and responsible persons in the community, in the Public Service itself, whom he could trust to authorize such prosecutions. Of course, if the prosecutions are authorized by him, then his own wisdom is in jeopardy if such authority is abused. As the matter stands at the moment, however, there is no safeguard whatever against abuse. Commonwealth legislation can be used for malicious motives, for purposes of extortion and the like.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Is the honorable member suggesting that a bush kanaka could present an information against the Administrator of New Guinea?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, there is no doubt that he could. Any person - that is the term used - can institute proceedings for the committal for trial or for the summary conviction of any person in respect of an indictable or summary offence. The term “ any person “ would be restricted, I presume, to adult persons, but it would not be restricted to persons who are citizens of Australia. The person could be an indigenous native inhabitant of the Commonwealth or of any of the Territories. The person could be an unnaturalized European resident in Australia.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Could he be a person with a gaol record?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Indeed, he could. There is no qualification as to means, education, morals, race or religion, with respect to persons who can institute these proceedings, if an offence has been committed against a Commonwealth law.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Could Darcy Dugan lay a charge against the AttorneyGeneral?

Mr WHITLAM:

– He could, yes. I am not to be thought to suppose that the Attorney-General is guilty of any offence against a Commonwealth law, but, to take the possibility mentioned by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, if the AttorneyGeneral did commit such an offence then Darcy Dugan would be - perhaps I should not say at liberty - entitled to institute proceedings. The position is absurd as it stands. One does not approach the criminal law by asking whether a conviction is likely or whether a prosecution is likely. One approaches it by asking: Is a prosecution possible? A prosecution is possible at the instance of any person.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Even that of Somerville Smith.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The AttorneyGeneral, in his second-reading speech on this bill, stated - . . honorable members will bear in mind that in every case there resides in the AttorneyGeneral the discretion to forbear to prosecute in cases where there may be no more than a technical breach, or where good reason exists for doubting guilt, and the likelihood of a conviction.

In fact, that is not the case. If one may quote the honorable and learned gentleman, one may say that he had not read his books. He had not read the statute. Anybody can do these things. So that unauthorized persons not acting in an official capacity may no longer be able to do these things, we have moved this amendment.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, it is perfectly obvious to every one in this chamber, and, I suppose, to any one who has taken the trouble to listen to the broadcast of these proceedings, that the Opposition has come down to a pretty low ebb on this occasion, because we have had to listen to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) carrying on a conversation, assisted by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), on matters of law. There are limits that should be observed, of course, and probably the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has very much to learn.

This amendment is very interesting, coming from a Labour Opposition. I should have expected to hear the Opposition loudly calling for the fundamental constitutional right for any citizen to set in motion the processes of the criminal law. Section 13 of the principal act embodies a timehonoured and well-entrenched constitutional principle from which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to depart in respect of all federal offences. He called our atten tion, on the last occasion on which he was on his feet - or the second last, for these occasions are sufficiently frequent for me to lose count - to the fact that section 33 of the act provides that any person who, being a Commonwealth officer employed in a capacity not judicial for the prosecution or punishment of offenders, corruptly asks, receives or obtains any property or benefit of any kind for himself on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, with a view to corrupt or improper interference with the due administration of justice under the law of the Commonwealth, commits an indictable offence.

Let us expose the Australian Labour Party’s proposition. It is that if a Commonwealth officer takes a bribe to hold a man longer than he should or to do something else that he should not do in the administration of justice, the man who is hurt cannot bring proceedings, but must wait until the official machine has moved. The Attorney-General of the day may then say, “ I will not have my public servants exposed to prosecution. I am head of a department, and I shall protect my officers.” The Labour Party’s proposition is that the citizen shall be left without any remedy at all. I should have thought that the members of that party would have been the very first to say that this was not proper.

Let me give the committee other illustrations from the statute. Section 28 of the act makes it an offence to interfere with political liberty by the use of violence or threats. The Opposition’s proposition is that a citizen whose political liberty has been interfered with has to wait on the Attorney-General to see whether he is to enjoy his political liberty. Fancy the Labour Party proposing that in this Parliament! Imagine it! Of course, on this occasion, that party has made some sort of a bargain with somebody to oppose this bill at every step, and whether the party’s views make sense or make nonsense, we are to hear them. I have no doubt that in due course I shall hear a great deal of noise because I have to use the closure from time to time in order to be able to get on sensibly with the business of this place, and that I shall be regarded as being oppressive.

One has only to consider this amendment for two minutes in order to see what it is worth. Listening to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was bad enough, and I think that when one looks at the amendment and sees what the Opposition really proposes one recognizes that the amendment deserves pretty short shrift. One needs to think of this amendment along with amendment No. 10 in the list which I circulated, which proposes to insert a new section 24ac in the principal act. That proposed new section will provide that in relation to these public offences - offences against the people themselves - of treason, treachery, sabotage and espionage, some official consideration ought to be interposed and that people ought not to be exposed to the possible enmities and malice of fellow citizens. I think that is a reasonable proposition. In respect of the cases relating to official secrecy which proposed new section 24ac will not cover, existing section 85 of the act protects people from prosecution except with the official consent of the Attorney-General or a person acting under his direction.

There are quite a number of these offences - I have instanced only one or two - in respect of which it is absolutely essential that the private citizen have the right to set the law in motion. He does so at his own risk, of course. The law provides a remedy against him if he does it maliciously, and from time to time we hear of a case for malicious prosecution being brought against a person who has maliciously set in motion a prosecution. Very considerable sums are awarded in damages, because the damages are not limited merely to the costs that are wasted. In an action for malicious prosecution, a jury is entitled to punish the person who has been malicious in setting in motion the criminal law and to recompense the plaintiff as well.

These are well-known and time-honoured processes of the law, and we have had to wait until 1960 for some new genius to tell us that it is better that officialdom control the rights of the individual. Is not this something new - that officialdom should control the rights of the individual? We on this side of the committee do not agree with that. We think that an individual who is hurt ought to have a right to approach the law at his own expense, and that in respect of offences against the public, the interposing of the Attorney-General and his officers between the individual and a prosecution is truly fair enough.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, the Attorney-General did not explain how it was that at the time when he made his second-reading speech on this measure either he did not know the law or he misled honorable members as to the law. He said that the Attorney-General of the day institutes these prosecutions in all cases. That was not true. He had not read his books. He was in the very numerous company of those whom he himself charges in this regard with not having read their books. He was in the company of Sir John Latham, Professor Sawer, Professor Stone, Mr. Kerr and others.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I hope I was not in their company.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The honorable gentleman says he hopes he was not in their company. He was, at least in this regard, because he had not read his books, and he has charged all those learned gentlemen with not having read their books.

The Minister’s objection to this amendment is that it is too wide. His projected amendment which is designed to insert in the principal act a new section 24ac will not be wide enough. He would not have thought of it at all - obviously, he had not thought of it at the time when he made his second-reading speech - if the Opposition had not circulated the proposed amendment which we are now considering. The list containing this amendment was circulated on Tuesday of last week, and the Minister’s proposed amendment did not come to light until Thursday of last week. In other words, this gap in the law would have remained open had we not taken the action that we have taken. The Attorney-General has now agreed that official prosecutions only shall be launched in cases of treason, treachery and sabotage. The principal act already provides that official prosecutions only shall be launched in respect of espionage, breach of official secrets, impersonation, unauthorized wearing of uniforms and so on.

The Attorney-General quotes two cases of citizens being precluded from exercising their rights to show that we have cast the net too wide. But the way he will leave it in his amendment which he has circulated and which he will move in due course will mean that there will be official prosecutions in the cases of treason, treachery and sabotage but there will still be private prosecutions for the purpose of malice or extortion in the case of sedition, inciting mutiny, assisting prisoners of war to escape, unlawful drilling, interfering with political liberty, destroying or damaging Commonwealth property, false pretences or false representations in statements or seizing goods in Commonwealth custody. Why should a citizen have to launch a private prosecution for the seizure of goods in Commonwealth custody or for destroying or damaging Commonwealth property? The Commonwealth knows when these offences have occurred; the private citizen does not know.

The honorable gentleman says that if prosecutions are left to officials to institute, the officials will cover up for their colleagues. He is asserting in the amendment which he foreshadows that if treason, treachery or sabotage have been committed by a Commonwealth official, the AttorneyGeneral would want to cover up. There was an Attorney-General whose brotherinlaw was interned during the last war, and he covered up for him. If such an Attorney-General wants to cover up for any official, any friend or any relative, he will not institute a prosecution. That is what the Attorney-General is saying. He is assuming that he or the persons whom he authorizes or the persons who succeed him will not do their duty. There is no doubt that if a private citizen knew that there was an infringement of political liberty, which was an offence against this act, and, having brought it to the notice of the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General did not do anything about it or covered it up, he would bring it to the notice of some one in this place and it would be raised here. No Attorney-General who condoned an offence against the Commonwealth Crimes Act would long escape any citizen who felt aggrieved. The citizen would have his remedies available to him and no Attorney-General would venture to fall down on his job and neglect his duty. This is quite plain.

If the Attorney-General does not like our amendment and if he thinks that there should be some safeguards or some provision for private citizens to commence prosecutions under Commonwealth laws, let him do it. He says that our amendment goes too far. His, equally clearly, does not go far enough. I agree with him that private citizens should have the right to institute prosecutions for breaches of the criminal law, but the Commonwealth Crimes Act does not deal with the criminal law in the traditional sense. The Commonwealth Crimes Act deals with crimes that we did not inherit from Great Britain and that we have not in fact regarded as normal in this country. It deals with offences against the Government, protection of the Constitution and Public Service, offences relating io the administration of justice or the coinage or offences by or against public officers - all of them quite clearly official matters. They are matters for which the Commonwealth, through the Attorney-General or persons whom he authorizes, should take responsibility. These matters should not be left open to abuse by private citizens.

Private citizens should have their right to institute prosecutions for breaches of the criminal law as it is normally understood. But private citizens should not have the right to extort or blackmail or indulge in vendettas against their fellow citizens for breaches of the Commonwealth laws which they imagine have occurred. The AttorneyGeneral is singularly unimaginative in this regard. He has quoted two cases in which we would have deprived the citizen of his rights, although the citizen would still have his rights. I have quoted several cases in which he has allowed citizens to abuse the processes of the criminal law.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- 1 am very surprised that a lawyer, such as the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam), who has been practising in the New South Wales courts, should sponsor such an amendment as this. If I remember correctly, under laws passed by a Labour government, a member of a trade union can lay charges for breaches of legislation dealing with shops. He can extort and embarrass and indulge in vendettas against any shopkeeper; but he is not a government official, he is an official of a trade union He could use all this power given to him by a State Labour government to be vindictive to shopkeepers.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

– I think it fair for me to say that I do not agree with the point made by the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson). I do not regard the action of the union official to seek the enforcement of the law as a means of extortion.

Mr Cairns:

– Ah!

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Never mind about your “ Ah! “ I will say that again wherever I like to say it. Perhaps if I say it somewhere else, you will be able to sing a better tune.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) overlooks the fundamental point that this provision has existed in the act since 1914 and, whether for malice or for any other reason, an individual could have launched a prosecution at any time until the present. It seems incredible that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should paint a picture of a crowd of vicious and malicious people waiting to institute prosecutions against members of the judiciary or public officials. They have not done it up to now and I do not expect that they will do it in the future. As the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) has pointed out, the common law has taken care of this for centuries and will continue to take care of it for centuries.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in arguing his case, submitted that the Crimes Act deals with offences that the Commonwealth did not inherit from1 Great Britain. The statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this point is in marked contrast with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) during the second-reading debate. The Leader of the Opposition asked why we should legislate for these matters at all. But from the Opposition side we have the acceptance of matters put by the Government, and that is that we had to legislate because we did not inherit these offences from the common law.

I want to mention one other thing. If the Opposition’s amendment were accepted, we could have the situation in this chamber of Opposition members protesting against pimps going along to departments and seeking to have prosecutions launched. I think it much better to avoid the risk of condemnation of this kind. If a citizen has infor mation, he should have the right to institute a prosecution himself, if he feels that he can reasonably do so and that such a prosecution has a chance of success. 1 have nodoubt that the natural limitations on a person’s cheek will prevent the great majority of them from proceeding in this way. Indeed, only one in a million would do so. It could possibly happen that the magistrate would dismiss that one case, and this would still leave the way open for an action for considerable damages by the person offended.

Mr UREN:
Reid

.- The honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) has drawn attention to the fact that this provision has been in the act since 1914. The Opposition has no objection to his mentioning that fact. However, we know that many aspects of the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) are very wide and very vague. The present Crimes Act will be widened. Although this provision is part of the act already, it is a provision which gives the opportunity to certain individuals to lay charges against others. The provision with relation to known character has also been contained in the Crimes Act since 1914, but known character in 1914 was a far different proposition from what it is to-day. So different is it to-day that it has been extended to cover three particular offences and sentences have been extended to fifteen years. The provision we are now discussing makes the act more critical. It allows prosecutions to be launched against persons in many places. I consider that the argument adduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) was a good one and the provision should be withdrawn.

The attention of the Attorney-General has been directed to the fact that he was not aware that this provision was in the act. During his second-reading speech he said that he was the only person who could launch prosecutions under the Crimes Act. I submit that the. argument put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is valid and should be accepted by the Government.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- I think the amendment proposed by the Opposition must be rejected on principle.

Hitherto, the Opposition has taken great pains to demonstrate that the rights and liberties of the citizen are important, yet, by this proposed amendment, it seeks to restrict the rights of the individual.

We have been told that this provision has been in the act for a long time. That is only part of the story. What matters is not the fact that it has been in operation for so long, but the fact that the amendment proposed by the Opposition would take away from the citizen whatever rights he has enjoyed. I shall certainly vote against the Opposition’s proposal, because I think it restricts the right of the subject, whereas the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General relates only to very serious cases in which, as he has rightly pointed out, the consent of the Attorney-General is desirable.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I am in some doubt in connexion with the matter we are now discussing, but at the same time I cannot feel that some of the arguments advanced by Government speakers are valid. The Attorney-General gave us to understand that we are now reviewing the Crimes Act and tidying it up. If that is so, it does not matter when the provision was first put in the act. If it is something that ought to be deleted or varied in any way, this is the time when that should be done.

What we must bear in mind is that in the case of minor offences there ought to be no interference with the right of the individual citizen to move the law in order to obtain what he regards as some reasonable adjustment of some matter in dispute. But in this legislation we are dealing with very serious offences. Strangely enough, I take it that the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt) objects to the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General. He wants the provision to be retained as it is. He want to retain for any person in the community the right to institute proceedings for any offence covered by the Crimes Act. I should imagine that it would be most unlikely that any individual citizen would want to institute proceedings in connexion with the serious offences covered by that act.

But let us assume that there was in the community somebody who wanted to do so. I said at the beginning that I was in doubt. One of the things that give me some concern on examining both the proposal by the Opposition and the amendment suggested by the Attorney-General is that the Attorney-General is given the exclusive right to decide whether any individual citizen may institute proceedings. According to the honorable member or Wide Bay, that power will still rest with the Attorney-General, and this is one provision which raises serious doubts in my mind when considering both proposed amendments.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You told me last night you had confidence in the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr WARD:

– What rot! I told you nothing of the kind! Let me give an illustration of what could happen under this provision. If the Attorney-General is to have power to authorize any person in writing to institute proceedings, he might authorize the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), for instance, to institute proceedings under this legislation. That appears to me to be a distinct weakness in the provision. I think that with respect to the serious charges that may be levelled under this legislation, the AttorneyGeneral should accept full responsibility. We know that the honorable member for Mackellar - there are others on the Government side who could probably be looked upon as being in the same category, but to a lesser degree - periodically runs round the country making ridiculous charges against all sorts of people, claiming that they are engaging in treasonable activities and so forth. It would appear that if the Attorney-General happened to see some advantage to be gained from embarrassing a trade union or the Labour Opposition, he could authorize the honorable member for Mackellar to institute proceedings. He could do so in the case of Brigadier Spry, or the member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), or even the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Chresby), who raised the great question of the mystic five which I have never been able to understand up to this day. All those people could be authorized by the Attorney-General to institute proceedings if either of these amendments is accepted. That is why I say I feel great doubt as to whether these proposals are advisable or whether they should be rejected.

In the circumstances, I should like to hear other members of the committee express a viewpoint on the matter. I do not think that we should leave it entirely to the lawyers to argue. Lawyers on the Government side have been arguing and contradicting each other. For instance, the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) contradicts the opinion expressed by the honorable member for Wide Bay. He said quite frankly that he did not agree with it. The Attorney-General had to explain to the honorable member for Wide Bay to-day what the law provided. In view of all the differences of opinion amongst legal men in the chamber, I should like to hear other honorable members on both sides express their opinions on this most important and serious matter.

Mr CHRESBY:
Griffith

.- I think my learned friend, the Deputy Leador of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), will undoubtedly agree that the fundamental principle of law is that it tends to conform to reason and what is not reason is not law. On that basis, it is obvious to anybody who has been a student of these matters, particularly in the common law field, that, over the years, we have built up the common law principle that it is the individual’s right to protect his rights. In fact, it is obligatory upon him to protect his own rights. He is solely responsible for his own rights.

Starting with that basis, we have gradually developed over the centuries the principle that it is also the right of any individual to apprehend another under common law if he believes that other person to be guilty of committing a breach of an act and, in some cases, even if he believes that other person to have an intention to commit a breach of an act. But in doing so he must provide proof to justify the action he has taken, or suffer the consequences. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, and as the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden) has mentioned, there is a provision dealing with malicious prosecutions.

I have a great deal of respect for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but in this case I feel that, knowing the common law as he does, he has been talking somewhat with his tongue in his cheek. When dealing with this particular provision, he has made sweeping references to a former Attorney-General, Chief Justice, a professor and so on, and has put their opinions against those of the Attorney-General.

Having conducted cases in court, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know the rules of evidence. He should know all about the rule relating to hearsay evidence and so on. He should know that if you propose to take somebody’s opinion you must relate that opinion to the particular matter being dealt with. It is all right to say that somebody has condemned the Crimes Act, but you have to read and find out what sections he dealt with, how he dealt with them and what is the basis of the evidence that he submitted. Speaking purely as a student and not as a lawyer I think that, as the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) would not know, but as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know, Jennings has said that a student is entitled to express his opinion and that until it is disproved by a judicial opinion he is entitled to hold it. On that basis, I am stating, on pure common law, it has been the right of the individual to protect his own rights, if he thinks he is right. In this case, where he is being defrauded in some way, he has the right to take the initial action and if he does so he also automatically elects to take the consequences of his action if it is proved wrong. On that basis I am satisfied with the provision that the Attorney-General has put forward.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

.- The Opposition has got itself into an amusing position. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) got up and criticized the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). He said he is in great doubt and does not know where to go and that he would like somebody to take his hand and help him but, generally speaking, he does not like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s proposition. When I pointed out where he was going and that he was trying to take away the rights of the individual the Deputy Leader of the Opposition retreated and said, “ If the Attorney-General thinks our amendment goes too far, will he please draw us another one, not so bad as his but better than ours? “ I do not misrepresent him, because that is precisely what he said. He said, “ You know the Attorney-General copied ours. We gave out ours on Tuesday and he produced his on Thursday.” When I put the two propositions together like that, it is terribly silly.

The fact of the matter is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the other members of the Labour Party did not know where they were going and that they were proposing to take away fundamental rights. It is not to the point to say that these offences are serious. They are serious in relation to individuals. If somebody - a Commonwealth officer - takes a bribe in order to keep me locked up for the night, that is pretty personal to me and I ought to be able to do something about it. The Labour Party did not see where it was going and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, in a vague way, “ If my amendment is too wide, please cut it down for me, Mr. Attorney-General “. All this business about copying is so childish. “ You copied mine “, or “ I have copied yours “; I will have none of that. When I made my second-reading speech I was of the view - and I still am - that you would not find one of these serious offences which affect property of a value of less than £50. That is very important, because unless proposed new section 12a (2.) is used, none of these offences could be tried summarily without the consent of the accused. The significance of that is that whereas a private citizen might be able to commence the committal proceedings, he could not indict a person. He could carry it beyond the committal stage. The Attorney-General must come into it at that point. What I said in my second-reading speech was correct. I said that it must be borne in mind that unless you can find an offence which only affects a value of £50 - I was then, and still am, of the opinion that you would not - the Attorney-General does stand between the indictment of a citizen and the private prosecutor who would want to set the law in motion.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made great play of this. I do not want to make a great point of it because pedantic accuracy at any given stage is not a virtue which I claim. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is so much more accurate than I am most times! I move -

That the question be now put.

Question put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 32

Majority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 49

Majority . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 14 -

Section seventeen of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “ during the Governor-General’s pleasure in a reformatory prison “ and inserting in their stead the words “ in prison during the pleasure of the Governor-General “; and

by omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.) and inserting in their stead the following sub-section: - “ (3.) Forthe purposes of this section, ‘ the Governor-General ‘ means the Governor-General of the Commonwealth, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Attorney-General.”.

Section proposed to be amended -

– (1.) Where a person convicted of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth, has been previously convicted on at least two occasions of indictable offences against the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State, or of a Territory, the Court before which he is convicted may declare that he is a habitual criminal, and may direct, as part of his sentence, that on the expiration of the term of imprisonment then imposed upon him, he be detained during the Governor-General’s pleasure in a reformatory prison-.

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- I move -

Before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - “ (aa) by inserting in sub-section (1.) after the word ‘ person ‘ the words ‘ of or above the age of twenty-five years

Section 17 of the principal act deals with what are called in the margin “ indeterminate sentences “. The Government is proposing two amendments to section 17 and the marginal note now will read “ habitual criminals “. During the course of his second-reading speech the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) was given permission by the House to incorporate in “ Hansard “ a list of minor amendments of which this is one. His description of the proposed amendment of section 17 of the principal act by clause 14 is in these terms -

Amends section 17 of the Act to enable the provisions of section 17 as to habitual criminals to fit in with the existing laws of the States on this subject.

The amendment that the Opposition has now moved will provide that a person can only be declared an habitual criminal under the Commonwealth Crimes Act in the same circumstances as those in which he can be declared an habitual criminal under the New South Wales Habitual Criminals Act or the corresponding legislation in Victoria, that is, if he is of or above the age of 25 years. I am indebted to the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) for bringing to my notice the amendment in this regard that has been made in New South Wales. He also mentioned this matter to the Attorney-General some days ago.

The Federal Parliamentary Labour Party believes that the Commonwealth act should not be more archaic or less advanced than is the legislation in New South Wales and Victoria. In New South Wales a new act - the Habitual Criminals Act 1957 - removed the old limitless provisions for declaring persons habitual criminals and provided that a person could be declared an habitual criminal only if he was 25 years of age or over. We believe that it is rather drastic to declare a teenager, or a person in his early twenties, an habitual criminal with all the disadvantages which attach to the declaration. We believe that by 25 years of age a person is more set in his ways than is a younger person, and that 25 years therefore should be the minimum age at which a person can be declared an habitual criminal. It is now the minimum age at which he can be so declared in Victoria and New South Wales. We believe that that should also apply in respect of Commonwealth crimes. In the light of the amendments to the principal act which the Attorney-General himself is sponsoring, it would seem that in New South Wales or Victoria a person under the age of 25 who had a record of convictions under Commonwealth or State acts, or both, could be declared an habitual criminal under our legislation, but not under State legislation. If his crimes had been under the Commonwealth act alone or under both State and Commonwealth acts he could be declared an habitual criminal, although under the age of 25; but if his crimes had been only breaches of State acts, he would not be so declared while under the age of 25 years. It is true that under the principal act, as amended by the Attorney-General’s amendment, it would be possible for the AttorneyGeneral to release a person under the age of 25 at any time after he had been declared an habitual criminal, but we do not believe that it is satisfactory to leave this purely to the benevolence and the discretion of the Attorney-General. The Parliament is making the law, and the Attorney-General has Stated that the intention is to make this act, in this respect, equivalent to the State legislation. The amendment which we have moved will achieve that object.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– It is true that the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) called my attention to this provision of the bill, and also to the recent New South Wales amendments. When section 17 was first passed, I think all the States provided for indeterminate sentences when a person was declared an habitual criminal, and the reference was usually to detention of the person in a reformatory prison. Not all the States have now got reformatory prisons, so it was necessary to take the reference to reformatory prison out of section 17. The States vary among themselves in fixing the minimum age below which a person may not be declared an habitual criminal. New South Wales has departed altogether from the idea of the indeterminate sentence, and has virtually got rid of the idea of an habitual criminal as aforetime. I think that the minimum ages in the various States range down as low as eighteen and as high as 25. Proposed new section 20c reads -

A child or young person who, in a State or Territory, is charged with or convicted of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth may be tried, punished or otherwise dealt with as if the offence were an offence against a law ot the State or Territory.

If the young person is a young person within the meaning of the State law and if 25 is the age below which a young person cannot be declared an habitual criminal so be it. If, on the other hand - and this is a possibility - the State does not regard a person between the age of 21 and 25 as being a young person, but sets 25 as the minimum age below which declaration as an habitual criminal cannot be made, then the Commonwealth law, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) says, would permit a declaration in the case of a person between the ages of 21 and 25. But Commonwealth law has to accommodate itself to the laws of the States, and live up to a fairly general principle in this matter. As far as possible the Commonwealth system is fitted in with the State systems. We use the States’ laws as to evidence, very largely. We use a number of the State procedures too. The idea is to allow the Commonwealth legislation to run with the State legislation as nearly as possible.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in making his proposal, overlooks, I think, the fundamental human fact that whereas it may be quite all right in New South Wales to select a particular age as the minimum age below which a person may not be declared an habitual criminal, that does not necessarily fit the community circumstances of other places. It is quite wrong to think of Australia as absolutely uniform in those respects. It may very well be that a State - which, after all, has a very good knowledge of its own conditions and of the threats to its own system - may fix a particular age below which a person may not be declared an habitual criminal. One State may fix the age at eighteen years and another at 25 years.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– When the sitting was suspended, I was speaking about on amendment moved by the Opposition to limit section 17 of the Crimes Act to provide for the declaration of a person as an habitual criminal if he is over 25 years but not if he is under 25. I had pointed out that the laws of the, States are not uniform in this respect. Some of the States fix the minimum age at which a person can be declared an habitual criminal at less than 25 years; some fix the minimum at 25. New South Wales has given up the idea of an indeterminate sentence so that, strictly speaking, there are no provisions for the declaration of an habitual criminal in that State. As I have said, we have provided in proposed new section 20c -

A child or young person who, in a State or Territory, is charged with or convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth may be tried, punished or otherwise dealt with as if the offence were an offence against a law of the State or Territory.

This, of course, is permissive. It will allow a State court exercising federal jurisdiction and trying young offenders against Commonwealth law, to deal with them in the same manner as the court would deal with young people who had committed an offence against the laws of that State. This might yield different results in different States. In clause 17 of the bill, which amends section 19 of the act, there is also a permissive pro vision. Neither of these provisions is mandatory. There is a permissive clause that a court dealing with an offender against the law of the Commonwealth may impose an indeterminate sentence. 1 believe that these two provisions will work out in this way: The State courts will treat an offender against Commonwealth law in the same manner as they will treat an offender of the same age in respect of an offence against State law. Some States might not regard a person of 25 years as a young person; other States may. If they regard a person as a young person at eighteen years or at 25, whichever is the minimum age under the State code, then the probability is that the courts will not declare him an habitual criminal although they would be entitled to under the amendment made by clause 17. If, on the other hand, the State law treats a person of that age as not a young person, then the courts will treat him as an adult. In that event, more likely than not, they will declare him an habitual criminal if the other elements are proven.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Could you not make it mandatory?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– No, you could not do that. It is not desirable to do so. You must leave it to the court to decide whether it will declare in any given case. A man might have committed a series of offences, but the judge might say, “ Under the State law, I will not declare this man”. So you cannot make it mandatory. With the State systems to cope with, and a fairly well-established Commonwealth practice of endeavouring, so far as possible, to allow the States when exercising federal jurisdiction to follow their own procedures and practices - this is not universal, but so far as possible it is the endeavour - the Government has solved the problem by proposed new section 20c, and by clause 17 which amends section 19 of the principal act.

As there will not be any reformatory prisons in the States, the habitual criminal who is so declared, will be held at the GovernorGeneral’s pleasure; but the GovernorGeneral will be advised by the AttorneyGeneral of the day as to what should be done with the prisoner. This, of course, is a procedure that is well known in administration; it is the common task of the Attorney-General. I do it with great frequency and advise the Governor-General what is to happen to a person who either asks to be released earlier or is imprisoned at the Governor-General’s pleasure for some offence.

Since the State of New South Wales has given up the idea of an indeterminate sentence, it occurred to me that New South Wales might not be prepared to allow the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth access to the parole board which the State has heretofore kept to advise the Minister of Justice or the Attorney-General in New South Wales as to what should be done with prisoners who were formerly held on indeterminate sentences. I have spoken to the Minister of Justice of New South Wales, and the Government of that State is prepared to allow the parole board to go on advising the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth at his request what is the best thing to do for the person who is under an indeterminate sentence. This arrangement seems to me to be flexible and will make the least inroads on the practices of the State.

For the Commonwealth to fix a minimum age and to apply it over all the States would, in some instances, throw a State into disconformity in this sense: It fixes eighteen years as the age below which it will not declare an habitual criminal in respect of offences against its law, yet in respect of Commonwealth laws it must observe the minimum age of 25 years. It is not a good thing for any State to allow two standards for the people - one in relation to Commonwealth law and one in relation to the State.

Mr Griffiths:

– Cannot you make it uniform?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I could not make these provisions uniform, because the effect would be to make them ununiform in the broad sense. If one person happens to be charged under a State law and another under a federal law - sometimes these may overlap - =they would be treated differently. The idea is to have them treated uniformly in a State but not necessarily uniformly over the whole Com. mon wealth. This matter is not easy to re solve, but the resolution we have taken on it was reached after a good deal of thought and consultation with the Administration and that is the provision in the bill. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has suggested would only cause want of uniformity within the States which is undesirable, and we are not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- The attitude of the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) on the question of uniformity is an astonishing quibble. He has said that he cannot accept our amendment because it would be possible that a person to be charged under State law and another under Commonwealth law and therefore be treated differently. That is exactly the result that will emerge from the principles applying in the bill. Under the bill, a person could commit the same offence in different States and as a result of his record, be treated as an habitual criminal in different States. This could happen to a person over seventeen years of age in Tasmania - I think that is the minimum age at which a person may be declared an habitual criminal in Tasmania - or at 25 years in New South Wales.

It is not the province of this Parliament to preserve illiberal tendencies even if they have the sanction of State Parliaments. The purpose of this Parliament is, if possible, to set standards and to provide a guide to other jurisdictions. Therefore, in this matter, the duty of the Attorney-General is to be not illiberal but liberal. If New South Wales, as a result of twenty years of humanitarian socialist government - has advanced to this point along the road in penal procedure that is the example we should follow. I have no sympathy whatever with the plea that because the States have preserved some of these illiberal tendencies in their own laws, we should foster them.

The attitude of the Attorney-General a few moments ago was inconsistent with the attitude that he has adopted in the case of marriage and divorce. Certainly, in the case of divorce, he has taken the most liberal provisions in each State act as a basis upon which to work. Yet here, in an approach to ordinary human problem* he is prepared to take the most illiberal provisions! This, of course, shows that the

State boundaries are simply traditional and historical and have no application to Commonwealth law.

In dealing with crimes against Commonwealth law or the security of the Commonwealth, the first consideration should be the attitude of this Parliament. In this case, as with almost every major provision of this bill, I believe that the AttorneyGeneral is going against the tide of history. People have fought for hundreds of years to make the case of the prosecution difficult. The non-admissibility of hearsay evidence, the presumption of innocence, and trial by jury, all at some stage have been won as a result of a revolution, bitterly contested by the powers that be. In this Parliament we should be stepping along the road of evolution towards the protection of the individual, towards more liberal penal procedures. In this case, the Attorney-General is adopting the constitutional obstructions of the last 60 or 70 years as an excuse not to set himself up as a standard bearer or to use this Parliament as a guide to the rest of the Commonwealth.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- My submission is along lines similar to those of the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant). I think that the refusal of the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) to agree to the suggested amendment by the Australian Labour Party is cruel, sadistic and inhuman. I was taught at Sunday school “ Suffer little children to come unto Me “. But the Attorney-General’s approach in this matter is, “ Suffer little children to come unto me “. Through an emotional disturbance in the home or through some economic circumstance, such as the father having to go away many miles to employment and leave the guidance of a young person to the mother, a child may embark on a career of crime. Clause 14 will enable persons to be declared habitual criminals at the age of seventeen or eighteen years.

The State Labour Government of New South Wales has approached the problem of habitual criminals in an entirely different way. Section 4 sub-section 1 of the Habitual Criminals Act 1957 in New South Wales reads as follows: -

When any person of or above the age of twentyfive years is convicted on indictment and he has on at least two occasions previously served separate terms of imprisonment as a consequence of his convictions of indictable offences, not being indictable offences that were dealt with summarily without his consent, then if the judge before whom such person is so convicted is satisfied that it is expedient with a view to such person’s reformation or the prevention of crime that such person should be detained in prison for a substantial time, the judge may, in addition to passing sentence upon such person for the offence of which he is so convicted, pronounce him to be an habitual criminal and shall thereupon pass a further sentence upon him in accordance with the provisions of section six of this Act.

The table which forms part of the AttorneyGeneral’s second-reading speech gives the following information concerning clause 14:-

Amends section 17 of the Act to enable the provisions of section 17 as to habitual criminals to fit it with the existing laws of the States on this subject.

Yet the New South Wales law does not provide for the declaration of persons under the age of 25 years as habitual criminals. The Victorian Government has a similar law to that of New South Wales. These are the principal States of the Commonwealth - the two States with the biggest populations. They are moving towards a more humanitarian approach to this matter. They believe that a person of seventeen or eighteen years of age has not reached maturity or adulthood and should not be declared an habitual criminal. That approach is humane, Christian and everything that is good and decent. But the Attorney-General refuses to subscribe to the Labour Party’s proposal that the age at which a judge may declare a person an habitual criminal should be raised to 25 years.

I have had long experience in the criminal courts and I have several judges in mind in this connexion. I will not disclose their names. Frequently, some years ago, they declared young person of eighteen to be habitual criminals and so made them heroes in the eyes of other criminals. From my own personal knowledge, I know that they never escaped the effects of having been declared habitual criminals at that age. When released from prison they continued to break the law and were a total write-off to society. They have been in and out of gaol all their lives and they are still practising crime at every opportunity when they are released. I appeal to the AttorneyGeneral to yield to the Opposition’s request in the cause of humanity, in the cause of decency, and in the cause of progress so that a person cannot be declared an habitual criminal until he has reached 25 years - an age of maturity and of adulthood at which he will know the seriousness of what he is doing.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I wish to make my first contribution to this debate on the Crimes Bill. This has been a feast for lawyers and would-be lawyers. I am not a would-be lawyer, but I feel that, in proposing this amendment, the Labour Party strikes a note for humanitarianism and common decency which should have more consideration from the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick). The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) and the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) have put the Labour Party’s attitude spendidly in this matter. To declare a young man an habitual criminal at seventeen or eighteen years of age is to put the mark of Cain on him at the beginning. Any one who is declared an habitual criminal at that age feels that he has something bad to live down to rather than something good to live up to.

I feel that the Attorney-General would not detract from the bill if he added the words that we wish to add - “ above the age of 25 years “. It is no pleasure for me to be informed that in Tasmania a man can be declared an habitual criminal at the age of seventeen years. That is a shocking state of affairs and I certainly suggest that the Premier of Tasmania, the Honorable Eric Reece, should look at it. He would be well advised to prepare an amendment to bring the Tasmanian law into line with the humane provisions that operate in New South Wales and Victoria. Both those States have moved towards a new outlook in this matter, a new attitude towards criminals or would-be criminals. Surely the Commonwealth is not going to lag behind in the introduction of such a Christian provision. We have led the way with the Matrimonial Causes Bill that we debated last year, and also with the Marriage Bill, which has not yet been passed, but no doubt will be. Here we are bogged down with this archaic attitude which requires that young men of seventeen or eighteen who have appeared in court and been convicted a couple of times will be declared habitual criminals. In these days of enlightenment and growth and humanitarianism it is a tragedy to think that the Government proposes to subscribe to such an archaic attitude as is revealed in this bill.

The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) has had experience of these matters during his career as a police officer. We know that throughout the land there are men and women devoting their time to helping young chaps who get off the track early in life, and to rehabilitating and reforming them. We have chaplains in most of the major prisons in Australia today, whose humanitarian and Christian mission is also to try to reform such lads, and to turn them from the ways of crime into the ways of useful citizenship. They are trying to induce these young people not to waste their lives and not to think that they can become successful criminals - after all, no one has ever yet achieved that ambition - but to realize that there is a possibility of changing their way of living. Yet this Government proposes to say to young men of seventeen or eighteen, “ You have made two mistakes, so we will put the mark of Cain on you, which you will carry for the rest of your life “. What chance is there of such a young man believing that society is on his side? He will most likely say to himself, “ Society is lined up against me. I have been declared by the courts an habitual criminal when I am only seventeen or eighteen years old.” I know how I would feel if I were in such a position. I would want to go out and fight society as best I could, and that is the kind of attitude that we will develop in the minds of these young people.

I therefore plead with the AttorneyGeneral to display a small spark of that liberalism that he has shown in relation to other legislation that he has brought down. From the interjections that I hear, it appears that other honorable members do not subscribe to my references to the Minister’s liberalism. But big fires have resulted from small sparks. The Minister has shown one or two small sparks of humanitarism. I now plead with him to-night to kindle one of those small sparks and to accept our amendment in the name of Christian and social progress, so that our criminal law may be improved. I ask him not to line himself up with those who adopt the archaic policies which would smash a young man down at the age of seventeen and keep him down for the rest of his life, bearing the mark of Cain. If the Government does not accept this amendment it will show, as the honorable member for Hunter has said, that it adopts a sadistic attitude in its approach to this great problem.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- One of the points we must remember in considering this clause is that it refers to a person convicted of indictable offences against the law of the Commonwealth on at least two occasions previously. Indictable offences are most serious offences in this country. Now we are told by the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) that a person who has committed two or more of these most serious offences, such as treason, sedition or sabotage, will think that society is against him if he is handed the “ key “. I suggest to the honorable member that he should realize that courts exercise their jurisdiction in this matter very carefully indeed, and that criminals, knowing that courts exercise their jurisdiction very carefully, are themselves particularly careful to avoid being given the key. Now the honorable member suggests that a criminal who indulges in very serious crimes against the Commonwealth on several occasions should be able to continue to do so with impunity if he has not attained the age of 25 years.

I suggest that we should heed what the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) has said, and leave the law exactly as he has drawn it up. Then the matter will be one for consideration in each State according to the law that obtains there. The law in Queensland, for example, does not contain any reference to the age of 25 years, and I am sure that the courts in that State as, indeed, the courts in Tasmania, are noted for their impartiality and for the justice that they mete out.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As a simple Presbyterian, I wish to direct an overture to the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick), and to ask him to consider carefully the propositions that we put forward. The AttorneyGeneral has shown, in my opinion, a commendable determination to bring about some uniformity in the laws of Australia in matters over which the Commonwealth Parliament has control. He did an excellent job with the Matrimonial Causes Bill, and also, so far as I can see, with the Marriage Bill. Now he has the opportunity of achieving some degree of uniformity in relation to the laws that we are discussing, and I plead with him not to take any notice of the silly articles that have appeared in the newspsapers about his changing his mind.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I do not worry about them.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is good. I am glad to know that the Minister is not influenced by these ill-informed articles, which condemn him for accepting amendments that are all to the good. As one writer said in an article which I thought was quite good, if the Attorney-General refuses to accept amendments he is stubborn; if he does accept them he is weak. I would prefer him to be weak rather than stubborn on this matter.

I ask the Attorney-General to consider the hypothetical situation that I will postulate. Suppose there are two young men of eighteen years of age living in New South Wales or in Victoria. As these States contain two-thirds of the total population of Australia, it is reasonable for me to illustrate my point by referring to these two young men. Let us suppose that they both commit two offences against the laws of the State, and that they are convicted and punished on each occasion. One of the young men commits his third offence against a Commonwealth law, the Crimes Act, while the other commits his third offence against a State law. The latter person cannot be declared an habitual criminal. He cannot be put in gaol at the pleasure of the Governor-General for a period which, in theory if not in practice, can extend for the rest of his life. When we talk about laws we must not talk of what is likely to be done. We should have regard to what can be done. I am pointing out to the Attorney-General what can be done to a boy of eighteen. If he has committed two indictable offences against State law and a third offence against Commonwealth law, he can find himself sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mr Bandidt:

– No. All three offences have to be against Commonwealth law.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No. That is where my friend from Wide Bay, who claims to be a lawyer, is wrong. If he reads section 17 (1.) of the principal act, he will find that it states -

Where a person convicted of an indictable offence against the law of the Commonwealth has been previously convicted on at least two occasions of indictable offences against the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State-

Mr Bandidt:

– The honorable member is right.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Thank you.

Mr Ward:

– The honorable member for Wide Bay had better stay in the small debts court.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not know that he would be suited even to that court, because up to date he has shown a very poor knowledge of the law. Although I received most of my education in the shearing sheds, so far I find that my knowledge of the law is at least equal to that of the honorable member and almost as good as that of the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Chresby).

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about the Attorney-General?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Leaving out the Attorney-General, of course, the honorable member for Griffith would be easily the most outstanding legal brain in the Government’s ranks.

The Attorney-General can now see the great injustice that can be done to young fellows in New South Wales and Victoria. When we turn to Tasmania, we find that the same sort of thing can happen there, because there is no limitation. A boy of seventeen could in theory be in the position of having committed two offences against State law and could be liable if he commits a third offence, this time under Commonwealth law, to be sent to prison during the pleasure of the Governor-General. This means that he can be imprisoned until such time as the Governor-General decides to allow him to be released. The GovernorGeneral is permitted to keep the lad in prison for the term of his natural life if he so desires. Surely this is an inhuman approach to young men in their tender years - mere boys of seventeen, eighteen, nineteen or twenty. At that age, they are only babies, figuratively speaking, and they are to be put in a position in which they can be sent to goal for life because the third offence, if they commit a third offence, happens to be an offence against Commonwealth law, whereas, if they lived in New South Wales or Victoria they could not be sent to gaol for life as habitual criminals if the third offence was an offence against State law, until they were 25 years of age. That age, as a minimum, is reasonable enough. I suggest to the AttorneyGeneral that boys of eighteen and nineteen are mere children. At that age, they are nothing more than boys, and they should not be sent to gaol for life simply because they have committed a third offence which happens to be an offence against Commonwealth instead of State law.

I ask the Attorney-General to make a name for himself and to surprise every one by saying, “ Having heard tile excellent arguments put up by the honorable member for Hindmarsh and other Opposition members, I have now decided to alter the bill as drafted in respect of this question “. I ask him to provide in this measure, as has been done in the Matrimonial Causes Act, and as is being done in the Marriage Bill, for uniformity throughout Australia, so that regardless of the State in which a man lives, if he commits an offence against Commonwealth law, he will be treated the same as is a person in any other State who commits an offence which is indictable under the same law. A boy in New South Wales should be treated the same as is a boy in Tasmania. The Attorney-General has excellent draftsmen, and I can tell by the expressions of satisfaction on their faces that they already have a draft of a clause which they can produce and which will meet this situation admirably. So 1 ask that the matter be reconsidered. Let the Attorney-General show his independence of public opinion and of these silly, stupid, little articles in the newspapers which describe him as being weak every time he accepts an Opposition amendment. I ask him to accept this one. Let him do something for humanity and not worry about what the newspapers may say about his action.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Chairman, we are here concerned with a Commonwealth law, offences against that law, and the punishment for those offences.

If the Opposition’s amendment is carried, this Parliament will not in any way interfere with the administration of justice in the States or with the criminal laws and procedures of the six different States. We shall merely say what will happen to people who are convicted of an indictable offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act, having already suffered two convictions for indictable offences under other Australian criminal laws - Commonwealth, State or territorial.

As the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) has said, an anomalous situation arises. If a young man of, say, 20 years of age suffers a third conviction for an indictable offence which is committed in New South Wales, his punishment will vary according to whether the third conviction was for an offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act or under the State law. If the conviction is for a breach of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, the young man can be declared an habitual criminal, but if it is for a breach of the State law, he cannot be declared an habitual criminal - not because his criminality is any less, but because he is not yet 25 years of age. The difference between the various States is bad enough, Sir. In Tasmania, a youth who suffers a third conviction for an indictable offence can be declared an habitual criminal at seventeen, but a youth cannot be so declared in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia until he is eighteen, or in New South Wales or Victoria until he is 25.

There is surely little enough justification for these variations between the States. But we are now, so we are told, modernizing and reforming the Commonwealth criminal code. Surely we ought to see that the same punishment attends breaches of the Commonwealth law from one end of Australia to the other and we should not be bound by the variations which occur in the different States. There are enough irrational differences already in the administration of the Commonwealth Crimes Act in the different States. The rules of evidence in criminal trials differ from State to State. The rules of evidence which apply to criminal trials for breaches of the Commonwealth Crimes Act vary from State to State. The position of juries in criminal cases varies from State to State. The provisions with respect to the composition of juries and whether women, or young or old men or women, can serve on them, and whether jurors have to have property qualifications for the trial of offences under the Commonwealth Crimes Act, vary from State to State. We ought to take the opportunity of introducing in respect of these matters a model code. We are doing it in some respects. We are providing in this bill something that is provided in no other law in Australia. We are providing that in respect of offences under this code evidence of a person’s known character shall be admitted in order to determine whether that person is guilty of one of the essential constituents of serious crimes. Under the Commonwealth Crimes Act as amended by this bill, but under none of the State acts, evidence of a man’s political reputation in other respects will be admissible.

If we introduce odious or admirable standards - according to the way one regards them - in any respect under the Commonwealth criminal code as to evidence or juries and so on, we ought also to do it with respect to penalties. What the Australian Labour Party asks is that the standard of punishment should be the most enlightened and the most modern under this most recent criminal code. I shall not say that this is the most admirable or most modern criminal code in Australia, but it is the most recent. In these matters, Sir, we ought to set the most modern and the highest standards instead of accepting the lowest and oldest standards. We ought to see that the punishment for crimes under Commonwealth law is rational and uniform from one end of Australia to the other. The penalty which a man suffers if he is convicted of an offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act should not depend on the State in which he commits the crime. A person can be declared an habitual criminal in New South Wales or Victoria only if he is 25 years of age. In the other three mainland States, he can be declared an habitual criminal if he is only eighteen, and in Tasmania if he is aged only seventeen. The minimum age set under State laws for two-thirds of the people of Australia is 25.

Mr Haylen:

– Twenty-five years is a United Nations recommendation.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is, but we forget what goes on beyond our shores. We know that two-thirds of the people of Australia cannot be declared habitual criminals unless their third offence is committed after their twenty-fifth birthday. If it happens to be a Commonwealth offence, they can be declared at eighteen years. We think that is an irrational anomaly and that we should take the opportunity in this recent code to follow the standard that already applies to two-thirds of the people.

Mr CLEAVER:
Swan

.- How glad we are on this side of the committee that the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) will not be deterred by these persistent arguments by the Opposition. We have been listening to most illogical, emotional clap-trap from Opposition members.

Mr Ward:

– Take your hands out of your pockets and stand up like a man.

Mr CLEAVER:

– I do not need to be told by the honorable member for East Sydney how to stand or how to conduct myself. We are quite happy to refute the opinions of the honorable member for East Sydney, as we have done before. I wonder whether honorable members who are advocating this amendment really appreciate the purport of it. In my opinion - I am sure my colleagues will support me in this - Opposition members are asking for a complete embargo on criminals who happen to be under the age of 25 years. One must therefore pose the question: Is there no criminal under the age of 25 years in the history of Australia who has not warranted declaration as an habitual criminal? Is there no evidence of this habitual tendency occurring under the age of 25 years? We can look back and see, unfortunately, crime becoming the pattern of a young life at 20 or 21 years, or the years under 25. It is apparent that a court has had to act.

Here we have the strong recommendation of the Opposition, with much illogical emotion attached to it, that the AttorneyGeneral should impose a complete embargo and give a freedom that does not exist in certain States to those under 25 years with habitual criminal tendencies. It is on this simple test, therefore, that I suggest that the Attorney-General will not be deterred from his obvious conviction, that he will retain the provision already in the bill, and that he will discount the emotional, illogical recommendations attached to the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr DRUMMOND:
New England

– I wish to address myself to this question with some knowledge of child welfare. I must say that as a layman I am indebted to the lawyers on both sides of the committee, and I am indebted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). However, I regret that he imported into this discussion a reference to known character, which applies to certain specific cases and does not apply at all to general criminal procedure.

The question we are discussing concerns the age at which a person shall be declared an habitual criminal. In a long experience of the administration of child welfare, one thing I found, as we find in every walk of life, is that there is a physical age and a mental age, and the two may be entirely different. One person at sixteen years is much older than another person at 25 years. Let me give a case in point. A young criminal was apprehended at King’s Cross a number of years ago. He had a flat, a mistress and a car. He was sixteen years of age and he was the head of a gang of criminals engaged in a very clever form of stealing. That boy was much older than many people are at 30 years of age. He had a high intelligence which he had turned to a wrong purpose. Similarly, some men at 60 years of age are done and others at 70 years of age or more still have a clear and effectively operating brain.

I am not unmoved by the claims put forward by the Opposition. I can claim that I had the Child Welfare Act of New South Wales amended to prohibit capital punishment being applied to any one under the age of eighteen years. So I am not without sympathy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made one good point when he referred to the multiplicity of codes. He made an excellent case, not so much for his amendment but for the necessity to get the authorities together and establish a uniform code throughout Australia. Nevertheless, while the present position stands, I will support the amendment in the bill.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I put before the committee a little while ago what I thought was the immediate problem, and that is whether we choose to force on the States some artificial uniformity in the Commonwealth code or whether we secure uniformity within the States where a judge may have to deal with young people who offend against State laws and Federal laws. One would imagine that the judge would be prone to deal with them in a similar manner. These provisions are permissive, they allow him to do what he would wish to do under the law, and the same judge can treat people in the State uniformly.

To fix on an age in the Commonwealth law will not produce uniformity within the States nor for the Commonwealth. In truth, it will create lack of uniformity. I have some sympathy with the proposition that one should try to obtain uniformity, and I am prepared to do this by negotiation with the Attorney-Generals. However, I am not, and I do not think this committee is, in a position to fasten on to an age. Most of all, I do not think the Opposition is able to do so because, with great respect, it does not understand the problem. Let me put the problem. You do not declare a young person an habitual criminal by way of punishment. You have one of two reasons for doing so. You say either that you are going to try to reform him or that he is so far gone that to let him out is to endanger other people. Sometimes in talking to these young fellows, we are very prone to forget the victims. We are very good at thinking about these young fellows, but when a young chap of eighteen or nineteen years has been through the courts on indictable offences more than twice, a judge should have certain power. Looking at the record of the accused and at him, and listening to the welfare officers who, in the States, give very good evidence about the background and propensities of these young men, a judge should have the power to say, “I regard this young man as a menace to society and he should not be loose “.

I do not think that age has so much to do with it. It is a question of the victims, and the younger he is, the more victims he will have. The problem is not associated with some artificial age, and I am quite sure that, with all his experience and knowledge, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not in a position to fasten on 25 years. Indeed, with great respect to my friend, the New South Wales Attorney-General, who is very interested in penology and has a great deal of good feeling, I rather think that it is illogical to say, “ We will see whether this person is capable of reform. We will see whether this person is so far gone that he is a danger to society. If he is under the age of 25 years and so far gone, we will not try. We will not give him a sentence for the purpose of reformation “. I find that illogical. To say, “ This young man is so far gone that he is a menace, but we will let him go because he is under 25 “ does not seem to me to be logical at all. It may be that those who are skilled in penology will be able to tell us, in conference as Attorneys-General, that there is an appropriate age. If so, we might be able to make it uniform throughout Australia. However, as I said before, I am not sure that each State in Australia has exactly uniform experience. There are great differences. I should think that the honorable member for Wilmot, who comes from Tasmania, thinks that his State is better than some of the other States.

I say to the committee that I have sought to produce uniformity between the States. I recognize that there may be some merit in trying to get uniformity between the States in all respects on this matter. That is a subject for negotiation, with expert assistance. The question should not be decided on the basis of almost maudlin talk to the effect that because a young fellow is under 25, he either is not capable of redemption or is not capable of being a menace and claiming too many victims in society. I put those reasons to the committee as very sound reasons for supporting what I propose to do and for rejecting the amendment proposed by the Opposition. Mr. Chairman, this matter has been discussed at great length-

Mr Haylen:

– You are not game to discuss it.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– There is no question of not being game.

Mr Haylen:

– You are not game to have a go.

Mr Pollard:

– You ought to be in the dock.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Order! The honorable member for Lalor will resume his seat.

Mr Pollard:

– He ought to be in the dock.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– Do we have to take that, Mr. Chairman? Is that a parliamentary remark?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is an offensive remark.

Mr Pollard:

– I represent 71,000 people, and I have a right to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Lalor will withdraw the remark and apologize.

Mr Pollard:

– I will apologize under duress. He is equally as capable of pleading in the opposite direction.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Lalor will resume his seat.

Mr Haylen:

– Do not apply the gag to this. Be a bit sensible.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– The matter has been very fully discussed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put his point of view twice. A great number of members have spoken, and I move -

That the question be now put.

Mr Haylen:

– You are the greatest rat of all time.

Mr Whitlam:

– No, he is only one of the little ones.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Parkes will get up, withdraw the remark and apologize.

Mr Haylen:

– I apologize.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the remark by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said that I was one of the little ones. I ask that he be asked to apologize.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Werriwa will withdraw the remark and apologize.

Mr Whitlam:

– I withdraw it and apologize.

Mr Curtin:

– The little bantam is growingup!

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Kingsford-Smith will withdraw that remark.

Mr Curtin:

– Which remark?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The one you just made.

Mr Curtin:

– About the little bantam?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Mr Curtin:

-I said he was growing up. I withdraw the remark.

Question put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be inserted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 22 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 23.

Section twenty-four of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - “ 24. - (1.) A person who -

Penalty: Imprisonment for life. “ (3.) On the trial of a person charged with treason on the ground that he formed an intention to do an act referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (1.) of this section and manifested that intention by an overt art, evidence of the overt act shall not be admitted unless the overt act was alleged in the indictment. “ (4.) A sentence of death passed by a court in pursuance of this section shall be carried into execution in accordance with the law of the State or Territory in which the offender is convicted or, if the law of that State or Territory does not provide for the execution of sentences of death, in accordance with the directions of the GovernorGeneral. “24aa. - (1.) A person shall not -

Penalty: Imprisonment for life. “ (4.) In this section, ‘ proclaimed country ‘ means a country declared by proclamation to be a proclaimed country for the purpose of this section, and includes -

Penalty: Imprisonment for fifteen years. “ (3.) On a prosecution under this section it is not necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of a particular act tending to show a. purpose prejudicial, or intended to be prejudicial, to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth and, notwithstanding that such an act is not proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, from his conduct or from his known character as proved, it appearsthat his purpose was a purpose prejudicial, or a purpose intended to be prejudicial, as the case requires, to the safety or defence of the Commonwealth. “.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, that procedure will be followed.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– This clause seeks to introduce into the law of the Commonwealth a more complete law of treason than is presently found in the existing section 24. The clause has given rise to a good deal of public discussion. A good deal of opinion has been offered as to what it would permit and what it would cover. It seems appropriate that at the outset I should say something about what clause 24 will do and why the Government proposes it and for that matter, why it is proposed at this time. I think it proper, first, to call the attention of the committee to what is provided by the existing section 24, and this needs to be very carefully remembered. Section 24 (1.) provides -

Any person who within the Commonwealth or any Territory -

instigates any foreigner to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or any part of the King’s dominions, or

assists by any means whatever any public enemy, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall be liable to the punishment of death.

I call the attention of the committee most forcefully to the portion of that section which reads “ assists by any means whatever any public enemy “. Those two portions of section 24 do not, of course, cover the whole of the common law of treason. When I refer to the common law of treason 1 refer to those rules of law which were first of all developed by judges in the early days and which were then picked up in the statute of treason in 1351 and were subsequently developed by judicial expansion of the statute of treason itself. That common law came into this country when Governor Phillip put his foot on Kurnell and it has been accepted as either colonial law or State law ever since, except to the extent to which some States have purported to codify their law in this respect by statute. Three States, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, have done so. This element of common law covered more than section 24 covers. The committee will remember that the Commonwealth did not inherit any such common law. The Commonwealth was not the subject of colonization; it was inaugurated by an act of the British Parliament. Any law of this kind that the Commonwealth desires to have as federal law must be introduced by statute. In 1914 these two parts of the common law of treason were legislated in the Crimes Act of that year.

Honorable members will remember that at an earlier stage of the debate I directed attention to the difference in status of this country now compared to what it was in 1914. In 1914 we were part of the British Empire and we could rely upon imperial law to look after so much of the common law of treason in the federal sphere as was not lifted into it by these two provisions. The Fisher Government in 1914 chose these two provisions and, in particular, chose the expression “ assists by any means whatever “ - any public enemy - as representing some part of that common law. This, in truth, it did.

The purpose of a law of treason is to protect the way of life of a people. If a country is a monarchy you need to protect your sovereign by a law of treason. If you are a parliamentary democracy, as we are proud to be, you need to protect your parliament against being overawed by force and violence to compel it to take a course which it otherwise would not take. You need a law of treason to ensure that none of your people traitorously assists the enemy in time of war. This is a very necessary element in protecting your country. You need a law of treason to protect your territorial integrity to ensure that you are not invaded and that your people do not assist or instigate those who would invade your country. These are the great purposes of the law of treason.

In 1914, the first proposition that I mentioned - the protection of our sovereign who was then King of the Empire - was effected by imperial law and there was no need to do in 1924 what I propose to do in this clause, namely, to bring in as treason the killing, maiming or wounding of the Sovereign or of the heir apparent. That was looked after by imperial law. But the position has changed completely. To-day we are an independent country. We have a Sovereign of our own. The Queen is the Queen of Australia, but there now is no federal law to protect her. Let me make the point quite clear so that Australians will understand. If, during a visit to Australia, the Queen was either killed or maimed in a State, the national government would have no law to deal with the offender. It would need to go to the State Attorney-General concerned and plead with him to apply some State law. Is this consonant with the dignity of this country? Is this consonant with our duty to the Sovereign who is now our Sovereign? This change is dramatic. What was good enough in 1914 is not good enough now.

I have heard the critics ask why the Government is taking this action now. Are we all to remain idle when we know that there is no federal law to protect our Sovereign and when there is no federal law relating to the performance of our duty to that Sovereign? Is this the wrong time to advance this proposal? Should it be put aside for six months or five years? While I am doing a routine tidying-up of this so out-of-date act, should I allow it to be said of me that I was good enough to tidy up the law about coinage and that I was good enough to tighten up the law about habitual criminals, but that I was not good enough to introduce a law to protect the Sovereign? It is just too silly for words!

There is another provision in this clause relating to levying war against the Sovereign or the country. In 1914 we could rest on imperial law to protect us against civil war, because levying war covers the element of attempting to depose the Sovereign; attempting to overawe the Parliament by force and violence, and attempting by force and violence to take government out of the hands of the government. That is what levying war means. Does the Labour Party suggest that this country, this national government and this national Parliament should not enact a law to protect iself and to protect its Sovereign against force and arms which are being used in an attempt to take control out of the hands of a democratically elected government? Does the Labour Party stand before the people of Austraia and say, “We do not mind if armed bands come to this national capital to coerce the government”? Not so long ago the Labour Party joined in sending to prison a man who attempted to coerce a single member of this place. He was found guilty of a breach of privilege.

The Opposition has submitted an amendment which seeks to take out of the clause that portion which relates to levying war on the Commonwealth - that portion which means that you cannot, by force and arms, attempt to depose the Sovereign; that you cannot, by force and arms, try to overawe the Houses of Parliament; that you cannot, bv force and arms, attempt to compel the Government to adopt any particular course. One wonders why the Opposition wants that portion of the proposed new section deleted. How can people hold up their heads if they refuse to accept a law of this kind?

I have twice repeated that the words “ assist by any means whatever “ are already in the act, and have been in the act since 1914. In years of practice I have never heard any one suggest that an accidental assistance of an enemy would fulfil this prescription. I should imagine that the judge of any court would laugh heartily if a prosecutor said to an accused person, “ You are guilty of treachery by accident “. This would not be possible because those who know this subject know very well that when a person is accused of assisting any one in this sense it does not mean that by some inadvertence or by some act on the bv-wind the accused person assisted the enemy. It means that an accused person, with his mind and with his intent, assisted the enemy. That is plain English, and I should have thought that it would be perfectly plain to every one.

Let me tell honorable members and the people of Australia the history of this matter. In 1878 the British thought that they would lay down a criminal code. They appointed four of the greatest lawyers of the day, one of them perhaps the greatest criminal lawyer of all time - Lord Blackburn. The others were Mr. Justice Lush of the High Court, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, and Mr. Justice Barry of the Irish judiciary. Those four men produced a draft code, and they solemnly certified that the words, “ assist by any means whatever “ represented that portion of the common law. But the British did not adopt the code and it was. left as a draft code. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen included in his text-book the principle that the boy learning law reads - that the common law in this respect included the words. “ assist by any means whatever “. Subsequently this was approved by the House of Lords. In 1882 Canada drew up a code and included in it, as representing this part of the common law, the words, “ assist by any means whatever “. In 1893 the Government of New Zealand included those words in a statute as representing the common law. In 1897 when Sir Samuel Griffith, Queensland’s first Chief Justice and one of its greatest, was drafting a criminal code for that State, he certified in writing that those words represented the relevant part of the common law. There is no question about it. None of the writers or critics can say that the common law will be satisfied unless there is a traitorous intent. They could not make this claim if they had read great cases like Ahlers Casement and Joyce. It is spread all through the book that you cannot be a traitor by accident. A person must be a traitor by intent. Then in 1902 Western Australia had a code, and it put these words in as representing the common law. In 1914 they were put into federal law, and in 1924 into Tasmanian law. It was left to this generation of lawyers to say that there was some possibility that the words were uncertain. Remarkable! We have a long chain of legal genius - not some practitioner of the moment - which fastened on those words as representing the common law. I and those who are helping me, left them in this act because we knew what they meant. I did not put them in. I left them there because I knew what they meant, because those round me know what they meant, and because history demonstrated what they meant.

But somebody - and I will come to that in a moment - began to cause public alarm. In all the years the common law had protected our liberty. In all the centuries no one had suggested that the common law endangered our liberties. It was the prop of our liberties. That those words represented the common law was beyond all dispute. There was no room for argument about that, yet somebody said, “Well, although in all the centuries it has never been suggested that these words interfered with liberty, they might “. When challenged, what was the answer? It was, “ There is a high degree of probability that to-day they would be construed in the way the AttorneyGeneral says, but we are not worried about that; we are worried about 50 years hence. Some judge in the future might abandon his judicial character, forget history, forget the great compulsion of precedent, and run off on a quirk of his own.” This has been built up in the public mind, partly by the press, until the people have become alarmed.

I came home from the United Nations after being away for five weeks, while this had been going on. There is nothing so disturbing to me as to learn that any member of this community would think for a moment that I would interfere with his liberty.

Opposition Members. - Oh!

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
LP

– I listen to the little baying hounds. It was only a short while ago that if I had written such a line and charged somebody for it, I would have been honoured for it; but because I stand here gratuitously no one gives me credit. I say that the first thing that moved me when I came home was that this idea was being spread about. I understand why it is. The Communists began it, and honorable gentlemen opposite carried it on. There is no question about that.

Secondly, I take it ill that decent members of the public who have no means of finding these things out for themselves, and decent trade unionists who have no means of finding these things out for themselves, should be filled up with this stuff until they feel genuine alarm.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Just see yourself as others see you.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– Well, I do not want to see you as I see you. I decided and stated openly that I would not alter the law, but that I would write a line in to make sure that there was no ground for the alarm - to reinforce the people’s confidence and show that the Government’s intention was perfectly right. I shall come to that very shortly.

The other part of the common law provision that is brought in by the clause is that it is treason to instigate a foreigner to make an armed invasion. That is an existing provision. I have lifted it from the existing section. I have no doubt that some people who do not understand the mechanics of a bill like this saw the whole of this in the draft and thought I was originating the whole of it; but in truth I was merely replacing here, something that was already elsewhere. I made two changes in regard to “ assist by any means whatever “. They are very significant. First, I took out the word “ public “ from the term “ public enemy “. I did that because in 1914 the term “ public enemy “ included enemies of the Empire. We now have enemies of our own. I took the word “ public “ out so that I would limit his provision to the enemies of this country. That was fair enough. By and by, when I come to deal with the treachery clause, I will remind the committee of the effect which the taking out of the word “ public “ had on that clause.

The, other thing I did was to interpolate the words “ whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared “. Those words were a part of the common law. For centuries the, common law has not allowed the fact that there has not been an international declaration of war to prevent a man from being charged with treason. That is as old as the hills. Those, words were put in, and somebody has endeavoured to make something of them.

So my opening remarks with respect to this particular provision are addressed to the committee along these lines: Making treason an offence is designed to protect our way of life, to see that we can have a debate in this chamber without having armed people outside, to see that our Sovereign has our duty performed to her, to see that our laws will protect her, and that we will not have to go cap in hand to any State if anything happened to her or her heir. If Prince Charles comes here, as we. hope he will in due course, are we to be powerless in point of federal law to protect him? Is it sufficient that this is law in the States and that we would have the States to assist us? I am sure that nobody who has any feeling for this country will think that we should be powerless in this respect, and I put it that way to the committee in explanation.

Some people say: “Why do it now? Why did you not do it ten years ago? “ That is a poor argument.

Mr Haylen:

– What about the gumshoe boys?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I know that this does not please the honorable member for Parkes. It is no good my appealing to him on behalf of this country–

Mr Haylen:

– What did you do for the country?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I warn the honorable member for Parkes that his constant interjecting must cease.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I have only one more thing to say in opening up this matter, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I have added to this clause a provision that is not new in the law. It is that any person who forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph of the subsection and manifests that intention by an overt act is guilty of treason. Would anybody contend that if an assassin was intercepted after he had made a pass at the Sovereign or the heir apparent, he could not be interfered with? Would anybody contend that if somebody was intercepted in an attempt to levy war in the sense I have mentioned he had not committed an offence?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Stop sheltering behind the Sovereign all the time.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– That is a remarkable remark. I have heard it from the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. Let the public know it. He said, “ Stop talking about the Sovereign so much”.

Mr Whitlam:

– He did not say that.

You are cashing in on the monarchy.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I have been misrepresented by the Attorney-General. He quoted against me, in the hearing of all the members of this chamber, words which I never said.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– You did say them. I heard them said.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You did not. I said to the Attorney-General, “ Stop sheltering behind the Sovereign “, and he completely and deliberately altered the words. I demand a withdrawal.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I heard it and so did my colleagues.

Mr Pollard:

– You are a liar.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The committee will come to order. When the Attorney-General has completed his remarks, the honorable member for Eden-Monaro can make a personal explanation.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have already risen and asked the Attorney-General to withdraw what he knows to be an untruth.

Mr Whitlam:

– He is a liar.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– 1 call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is not the AttorneyGeneral man enough to get up and admit when he is wrong?

Mr L R Johnson:

– I have never seen such rotten behaviour.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! When the Attorney-General has completed his remarks, the honorable member for Eden-Monaro may make a personal explanation.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rose to ask the Attorney-General to withdraw his statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

If the honorable gentleman wants to make a personal explanation, he cannot do so during the course of the Attorney-General’s speech.

Mr Ward:

– I rise to a point of order. The practice in this Parliament has been this: If an objectionable term is used by an honorable member, the honorable member against whom it is directed rises immediately and asks for a withdrawal. The Chair should not depart from that practice on this occasion. The Attorney-General used a term that was objectionable to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro and that honorable member is entitled to have a withdrawal immediately.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

The matter to which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro referred occurred in debate. In the circumstances, the honorable member may make a personal explanation when the Attorney-General has completed his speech.

Mr Pearce:

– I rise to order. I agree with what has been said by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), but I found objectionable a statement that was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who said the Attorney-General was a liar. That was unworthy of the Deputy Leader.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will not withdraw. This truculent runt thinks he can get away with anything.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will not withdraw when the Attorney-General will not withdraw his untruth.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order!

Mr Whitlam:

– I withdraw.

Mr Calwell:

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, in view of the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been asked to withdraw a remark which was objectionable and did withdraw it, I ask the Attorney-General to withdraw his statement.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
LP

– I heard the honorable member for Eden-Monaro say it.

Mr Pollard:

– You are lying. I heard the honorable member for Eden-Monaro say, “ Stop sheltering behind the Sovereign “.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! I name the honorable member for Lalor.

Mr Pollard:

– I apologize.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

I accept the apology of the honorable member. I ask the committee to come to order and I am not speaking to one side only. The Chair is not assisted by interjections from either side. I want to maintain order and I ask honorable members to assist during this important debate.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral to correct his lie.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

I ask the honorable member to withdraw that remark.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw, and I ask the Attorney-General to correct his misstatement since he knows now that it was incorrect.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– I will not withdraw. I can only say what I heard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! I have already explained the position. The matter to which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has referred, and which was raised by the Attorney-General, occurred in debate. If the honorable member for Eden-Monaro believes that he has been misrepresented, he may rise when the Attorney-General has finished his speech and explain his position.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to ask your guidance, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I said that the Attorney-General had been sheltering behind the Sovereign. The Attorney-General immediately said, “I invite the public to hear what the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has said “, and he accused me of saying something that I did not say. This is a libel that has gone over the air.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

I have told the honorable member for Eden-Monaro that he may make a personal explanation at the conclusion of the Minister’s speech.

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to order. I heard what was said by the honorable member and by the Attorney-General.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Is the honorable member speaking to a point of order?

Mr Turnbull:

– I can tell the Chair exactly what the honorable member for Eden-Monaro said and exactly what the Attorney-General said. I ask for leave to make a statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has not risen to a point of order, and he must resume his seat.

Mr Curtin:

– I rise to order. Now that everything has calmed down I would like to ask the Attorney-General to withdraw his remarks, which were offensive to me.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable member for KingsfordSmith will take his seat. His point of order is not upheld.

Mr Curtin:

– I want to complain about-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

If the honorable member does not resume his seat I will take action.

Mr Curtin:

– What is this?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

The honorable member will resume his seat.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I was explaining why, at this point of time, this provision as to treason has been advanced, why it is necessary, and what it means. There is one further point to be noted and it is this: In sub-clause (2.) of the proposed clause there is a provision that people who receive or assist a person guilty of treason or who, knowing that a person intends to commit treason, do not give information with all reasonable despatch, commit an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for life. I have heard a good deal of chatter about this provision. In one place I heard it said that this provision makes it possible to compel a wife to give evidence against her husband. This could not be further from the truth; but it is the sort of thing that has been spread around about this provision. This provision is what is called, at common law, misprision of treason. It is an old settled provision. It is a provision of the law of the States, either by statute or common law, and there is no novelty in it. Let me have one final word. It has been suggested that this has been brought in to interfere with trade unionism in some way, I say emphatically that that is not true. However, in order to demonstrate the bona fides of the Government, I have suggested an amendment to provide that nothing in the treason provision or, for that matter, in the other two, makes it unlawful to take any action in good faith in relation to an industrial dispute or matter. I cannot possibly go further in stating to trade unionists that this law, not only is not directed at them, but has no terrors whatever for lawful trade union activities.

Mr Ward:

– Who is to determine “ good faith “?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– The honorable member for East Sydney would never know what “ good faith “ meant.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I hope that the Attorney-General’s law is better than his history. He stated that we had inherited the law of treason when Phillip set foot on Kurnell. Of course, we did not. We no more inherited the law of treason when Phillip set foot on Kurnell - if, in fact, he did - than we inherited it a few years earlier when Cook set foot on Kurnell. We inherited the law of treason when Phillip landed in Sydney Cove, raised the British flag and established the colony. The difference between the AttorneyGeneral and me is that I read my books on this subject and he does not.

On this side of the chamber we have no objection at all to the codification of the law of treason in a statute of the Commonwealth Parliament, in modern language and in modern circumstances. The Australian Labour Party, of course, enacted the original section 24 of the Crimes Act in the circumstances which applied in 1914 when Australia was part of the British Empire. We certainly see merit in having in one statute the law of treason. It is one criminal law upon which the Commonwealth Parliament can pass legislation as well as the State Parliaments. We would have hoped that the code that would emerge would be certain in its meaning and contemporary in its signficance.

It is true that we have moved certain amendments to the section dealing with the crime of treason. We have done so to remove some of the excesses, archaisms and uncertainties of the draft which the

Attorney-General submitted to the House. One of the amendments which he has waxed so hot about, paragraph (d) of proposed new section 24, sub-section (1.), originally provided that it would be treason if any person - assists by any means whatever an enemy at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared.

I do not dispute that there was no necessity in the traditional law for a state of war to be declared, but is that satisfactory to-day? Should people in Australia not have the certitude of whether a state of war exists, declared or undeclared?

The Attorney-General also said that there was no need to state the intent with which the assistance had to be given. He spent very many minutes proving that the phrase “ assist by any means whatever “ did import the sense that the assistance had to be deliberate, and that it had to be with an intent to betray our country. He has demonstrated to the satisfaction of himself and, perhaps, of some of the claque behind him, that the words as he originally introduced them were adequate to safeguard our liberties and to preserve the traditional law. But for greater precaution he has agreed to amend the relevant paragraph. We had circulated an amendment which would also have covered those two positions - first, that the assistance had to be deliberate and, secondly, that the enemy had to be specified. The Attorney-General has now also circulated an amendment which will achieve those two objectives and we shall accept that amendment.

The Attorney-General has mentioned that we propose to move for the deletion of the paragraph which says that it is treason to levy war or to do any act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth. We shall do so for reasons that I will give in greater detail presently but the paragraph contains an archaic phrase. The interpretations which have been given of it are not re-assuring and the phrase, if it means civil war, insurrection or revolution, is perfectly adequately covered by the following provision which makes it treachery to do any act or thing in an attempt -

  1. to overthrow the Constitution of the Com monwealth by revolution or sabotage; or
  2. to overthrow by force or violence the estab lished Government of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country;

We suggest that, in order to commit an offence, it should be necessary to do those things with intent and I believe that the Attorney-General will agree with that. We agree, on this side of the chamber, that it should be a serious crime, punishable as seriously as any other crime in Australia, to kill the Sovereign or members of the royal family in the. line of succession, to assist our enemies - if we know the enemies - to instigate the invasion of our country, or to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth or the established Government of the Commonwealth or a State by revolution or force or violence. There must be no dispute as to our attitude on these matters. Our attitude was made perfectly plain three and a half weeks ago in this chamber when the second-reading debate on this bill was resumed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). The attitude of the Labour Party was made quite plain in the resolution that he. moved on that occasion. The amendments which we circulated on Tuesday of last week make it quite plain that we do believe, as the Labour Party showed in 1914 when introducing the rudimentary law of treason which the Parliament could then pass, and as Labour Governments have shown in every State since that time, that it is a crime, and the most serious crime in the criminal code, to subvert the Government or the Constitution of this country, or to subvert the Governments of the States, to kill the Sovereign, to help our enemies or to instigate an invasion. But this does not mean that we believe the, law should be archaic or uncertain. I now move -

In proposed section 24, sub-section (1.), omit paragraph (c).

We suggest that the Government should delete from the definition of treason the provision in paragraph (c) which says that it is treason if a person levies war or does any act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General, in h,is second-reading speech, stated in regard to this part of the bill -

Treason should be expanded to include a list of offences, all of which amount to treason at common law, and which have been adopted in some at least of the States.

It is not true to say that to-day any act preparatory to levying war is treason at common law or in any of the State laws. It is not, and it never has been. It is not true to say that “ levy war “ in that simple sense - levy war against the Commonwealth, or levy war against a State - is an offence according to the law of any State. The law that we inherit provides that it shall be treason to levy war against the king in his realm. This comes to us from the time of Edward III., and it is still the law in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. You will notice, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that there is no limitation in this definition to require that the levying of war must be against the Commonwealth within its realm, or, in other words, must be within Australia. The sense of levying war is being extended in this legislation beyond the meaning which it had at common law as applied in three of the States.

Nor, Sir, is it true to say that we are here enacting the law of treason, as regards levying war, which is the law in the States which have a code, namely, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. I quote from the criminal code of Queensland with regard to this matter. This code was framed by Sir Samuel Griffith when he was Premier of Queensland or perhaps when he was the Chief Justice. He was, of course, one of the founding fathers of the Commonwealth and our first Chief Justice. The Queensland criminal code provides that it shall be treason to levy war against the sovereign, (a) with intent to depose the sovereign from the style, honour and royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain or of any of Her Majesty’s dominions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr Whitlam:

– I am sure the AttorneyGeneral will grant me an extension of time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

The honorable member may take a second period by leave of the committee. Is leave granted? [Leave granted.]

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thank the committee. Sir Samuel Griffith’s code further provided that it shall be treason if the levying of war against the sovereign is in order by force or constraint to compel the sovereign to change her measures or coun sels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe any House of Parliament of any of Her Majesty’s dominions. Levying war in that provision has a precise meaning. If those words were used in this bill, or if that precise meaning was imported into it, we would not oppose the provision. Everybody would know what it meant. People do not know what the phrase at present in the bill means. Paragraph (c), which we suggest should be removed, refers to an act preparatory to levying war, which is included in no statute of Edward III. or Queen Victoria. Further, the phrase regarding levying war against the Commonwealth does not appear in such simple terms in the statute of Edward III. or in any statute of Queen Victoria.

The Attorney-General said in his secondreading speech -

The expression “ levying war “… is well known in the law and its use in the bill, of course, is in the sense in which it is already understood in the law of Great Britain and in the States of Australia. It requires the use of force in action which is far more than local riot or industrial action, with the object of forcibly accomplishing some end which should be effected, if at all, only by proper constitutional means.

If that is what is understood by levying war, if that were certain, there would not be so much objection to the phrase, archaic though it is. Let me quote from the Third Edition of Halsbury’s “ Laws of England “. This passage appears under note (s) on page 560. It refers to the direct and constructive levying of war, and it says -

The principles underlining such decisions as are cited in (two of the notes above) are ill defined and the law of treason enunciated has according to Sir James Stephen been unduly stretched.

Several honorable members on this side of the committee have referred to the case which was decided by a court in England in 1781 presided over by Lord Mansfield, the Chief Justice of England, who said -

Insurrections by force and violence to raise the price of wages, to open all prisons, to destroy meeting houses, nay to destroy all brothels, to resist the execution of militia law, to throw down all enclosures, to alter the established law, or change religion, or to redress grievances real or pretended, have all been held levying war.

I tell you the opinion of us all is that if this multitude assembled with intent, by acts of force and violence, to compel the Legislature to change a law, it is high treason.

The action of levying war in that sense then becomes treason, as distinct from the mere inciting of riots.

Mr Snedden:

– Read the complete passage. You left out parts of it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I quoted the passage as it appeared in my second-reading speech. There is a limitation on the time allowed in committee, and I do not propose to go over the whole judgment. The difference between levying war and ordinary rioting - that is, between the offence of high treason and the lesser offence - is inherent in the question whether the tumult was designed to bring about a universal change or a change of a merely local or personal nature. If riots are incited for the purpose of changing the wage structure in general throughout Australia, then that is levying war. Riots against one particular employer are simply riots.

The law on levying war is not clear. The term is an archaic one. It is indefinite. When it imports the sense of civil war, as the Attorney-General suggested by interjection the other day that it did, then it is well covered in the other parts of proposed new section 24, relating to treason, and of proposed new section 24aa, relating to treachery. That is, every form of war or revolution or force or violence indulged in for the purpose of changing legislation, or changing the government or the Constitution, is made a crime, punishable by the ultimate penalties, under other sections of this legislation. There is no need to use an archaic term, the meaning of which is illdefined and too far stretched, in order to catch any crime which has not already been made a crime. We believe in the law being certain and firm. We do not believe in its being uncertain and vague, as this provision leaves it. For that reason we move that the phrase concerning levying war and doing any act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth be deleted from the definition of treason.

If the Attorney-General were, in fact, to use the term which we have inherited from the statute of Edward III., then of course there could be no objection. It is already the law here. But he has used terms which extend that term. Secondly, if he were to use the terms that appear in the Queensland criminal code there would likewise be no objection, because they are readily understood and they are contemporary and precise. But the terms that are proposed to be used are archaic and imprecise. They cover happenings which should not be called treason or treachery, and for these reasons we move that the paragraph in question bedeleted from section 24.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, I rise to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented by the Attorney-General. I believe in the absolute necessity for taking every possible step to protect the Sovereign, as do all members of the Australian Labour Party. Tc-night. when the Attorney-General wasspeaking, because I felt that he was overstressing this need in order to cover upother objectionable features of his legislation, I interjected, “ Do not shelter behind the Sovereign”. The Attorney-General immediately said, “ I should like the public “ - or “ the nation “ or words to that effect - “ to hear what the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has just said. He has just said, ‘ Do not protect the Sovereign ‘. That shows the attitude of the Labour Party.” I claim the opportunity to have the “ Hansard “ record read to show that what. I have said to the committee is correct. T do not ask for a withdrawal because I feelsatisfied that the committee knows the factseven if the Attorney-General does not seefit to withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

The honorable member has made his personal explanation. There is no provision for the “ Hansard “ record to be read.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, the Deputy Leader of” the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), in the latter stages of his address to the committee, resorted to page 560 of volume 10- of the third edition of “Halsbury’s Laws of England”. When I asked him what he was quoting from, he said that he was quoting from footnote (s.). He referred also to and read part of a passage which has been cited by Lord Mansfield. I regret very greatly that I have to inform the committee that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has misled it by his reading of those passages. As I have said, the honorable member read fotnote (s). That footnote says: -

The principles underlying such decisions as are cited in notes (m), (p), supra,- that means “ above “ - are illdefined and the law of treason enunciated has according to Sir James Stephen been unduly stretched; . . .

The point is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was using this footnote to support his contention that the words “ levying war “ would cover riots for industrial purposes. I think the committee ought to know what is contained in the passage in “ Halsbury “ where the footnote occurs. That passage reads -

Acts of piracy may also, it seems, be charged as treason if there is an intention to take the Queen’s ships as well as those of subjects. Some forms of tumult formerly held to constitute treason would probably now be treated as treason, felony, riot or malicious damage.

Mr Whitlam:

– Will the honorable member read the passages to which footnotes (m) and (o) refer?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I have read them.

Mr Whitlam:

– No, the honorable member has not.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The earlier parts of “ Halsbury “ put the highest level of treason. It then explains as it goes through them the lesser forms of treason and ends with the statement that these things would probably no longer be regarded as treason because, as is pointed out, there is specific legislation to cover them and they would probably be treated as treason felony, riot or malicious damage. This is the passage that footnotes (m) and (o) refer to -

The levying of war may be of two kinds: - (1) express and direct, as raising war against the Sovereign or her forces, or with a view to surprise and injure the Sovereign’s person, or to imprison her or to force her to remove any of her ministers or counsellors, and the like; -

All these, of course, are matters which are specifically covered in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 24 of the principal act. The other kind of treason - the constructive kind - is stated by “ Halsbury “ in these words - or (2) constructive, as when there is a rising for some general public purpose, as to effect an alteration of the law, or to alter religion established by law, or to throw down all enclosures, or to open all prisons, or to pull down all meetinghouses. A person who takes part in any such acts, even though he had not previously aId formed intention of taking part in them is guilty of treason. lt was in the very nature of this thing that we had the statement by Lord Mansfield in the case against Lord George Gordon. I think it is important for me to read the full statement that was made by Lord Mansfield. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition purported to quote from this statement, but he quoted only a couple of sentences of it and - deliberately, I am sure - left out the sentences which were against his argument. In order to enable the committee to form a judgment, I propose to read the sentences which the honorable member left out. Perhaps I had better start at the second paragraph of the particular part of Lord Mansfield’s statement which relates to the levying of war. As I understand it, this was a direction by him to a jury. He said -

Insurrections by force and violence to raise the price of wages, to open all prisons, to destroy meeting houses, nay to destroy all brothels, to resist the execution of militia law, to throw down all enclosures, to alter the established law, or change religion, or to redress grievances real or pretended, have all been held levying war.

What Lord Mansfield was doing at that stage was stating facts on which people have been convicted of treason extending back over the centuries. He went on to say -

Many other instances might be put. Lord Chief Justice Holt, in Sir John Friend’s case, says, “ If persons do assemble themselves and act with force in opposition to some law which they think inconvenient and hope thereby to get it repealed, this is a levying war and treason “.

Now I come to the important part that was left out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition -

In the present case it does rest upon an implication that they hope by opposition to a law to get it repealed, but the prosecution proceeds upon the direct ground that the object was by force and violence to compel the Legislature to repeal a law.

That is an entirely different thing from riot in order to raise wages or achieve some other industrial prescription. The important words are -

  1. . but the prosecution proceeds upon the direct ground that the object was by force and violence to compel the Legislature to repeal a law, and therefore without any doubt-

This is where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition resumed his reading -

I tell you the joint opinion of us all that if this multitude assembled with intent by acts of force and violence, to compel the Legislature to repeal a law, it is high treason.

Those statements are quite clear. There is a multitude of cases on what “ levying war “ means. In my view, there can be no doubt about that. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the provision is vague and that people do not know what it means. He said that if it were precise, the Opposition would support it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, really does not believe that this is imprecise. Such imprecision as may be there is the imprecision that is part and parcel of every criminal offence. The imprecision is merely this: Will the jury be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt? We cannot say that a man who does this, and then specify (a), (b), (c) and (d), will be guilty. We would need 25 alphabets and more to say that if a man does this he is levying war. What we do is to say that it is an offence to levy war, and then a jury of twelve good men and true will decide on the facts whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to them that the offence has been committed. There is no lack of precision, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to encourage his supporters to abandon the stand that they have taken on this paragraph (c). The Opposition seeks to eliminate paragraph (c) of proposed new section 24(1.), which reads - (1.) A person who-

  1. levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; shall be guilty of an indictable offence. . . .

The elimination of this provision would be intolerable. It would create a situation in which a person could seek to levy war without committing an offence. If somebody raises a rebel group–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden), who is a lawyer, quoted from volume 10 of “ Halsbury’s Laws of England “ at page 560. He quoted a small portion which he thought would suit his argument, and he took it out of context.I propose to read the quotation in full. It is -

Direct and constructive levying of war. The levying of war may be of two kinds: - (1) express and direct, as raising war against the Sovereign or her forces, or with a view to surprise or injure the Sovereign’s person, or to imprison her or to force her to remove any of her ministers or counsellors, and the like; or (2) constructive, as when there is a rising for some general public purpose, as to effect an alteration of the law, or to alter religion established by law, or to throw down all enclosures, or to open all prisons, or to pull down all meeting-houses. A person who takes part in any such acts, even though he had not previously any formed intention of taking part in them, is guilty of treason.

If large numbers are assembled with a treasonable purpose, it is the purpose of the assembly which constitutes treason and distinguishes it from riot. Thus a rising to maintain a private claim or right, or to destroy particular enclosures or to remove private nuisances, or to break prisons in order to release particular persons (unless those persons are imprisoned for treason), or to destroy the machinery of a particular trade, does not amount to a levying of war within the meaning of the statute.

I shall quotes note(s) at the foot of the page. It refers to the quotation that I have given, particularly to the portion ending with the words “ is guilty of treason “. The note is intended to make the legal principles clear.

It says this -

The principles underlying such decisions as are cited in notes (m), (o), supra, are ill defined and the law of treason enunciated has according to Sir James Stephen been unduly stretched; see 2 Stephen’s History of the Criminal Law 271. See also Luders’ Law Tracts, “ Constructive Treason “. The principle that riot may constitute treason was established by R. V. Dammaree (1710), 15 State Tr. 521, but the same reasoning is found in 3 Co. Inst. 9, where cases in the reign of Elizabeth I. are cited. For the offences of treason felony, riot and malicious damage, see pp. 565, 587, 874, post.

I was amused to hear the hollow laughs of the lawyers opposite when I was unable to interpret an abbreviation. I doubt whether they would be able to do so, either.

I wish now to read from another book that I have been studying for some time. It is “ Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law “, the 17th edition published in 1958 by the Cambridge University Press. At Page 365, the following statement appears: -

War ‘, here, is not limited to the true ‘ war ‘ of international law, but will include any forcible disturbance that is produced by a considerable number of persons, and is directed at some purpose which is not of a private but of a ‘ general ‘ character /, e.g. to release the prisoners in all the gaols. It is not essential that the offenders should be in military array or be armed with military weapons.

This bill goes even further than the cases referred to here. The bill proposes to introduce a law which will make it an offence to do anything preparatory to the levying of war. “ Levying of war “ is a term that could be applied to a general strike throughout the whole of Australia, such as the maritime strike. Let us suppose that the unions decided to strike in protest against this present savage piece of legislation, and let us suppose that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all the unions of Australia decided that, as from to-morrow morning, they would completely paralyse all industry so that there were be no electric light, no trams, trains or motor buses and there would not be a single moving thing anywhere in Australia. All hospitals would be closed and everything would be completely paralysed. Such action would come within the definition of “ levying war “ that I have given and would be an act of treason for which the persons who took part in it would be liable to the penalty suggested here, which is death.

Mr Freeth:

– You have overlooked proposed new section 24 (1.) (f).

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No, I have taken full account of that provision. As a matter of fact, it makes the position even worse and at a later stage we propose to move that it be omitted, as I shall explain when we come to it. We propose that it be omitted altogether.

I put it to the committee that not only would the unionists who participated in the general strike against the savage provisions of this bill be guilty of treason punishable by death - each and every one of them - but the union secretaries who attended the meetings, or who wrote out the resolution, or who were members of the steering committee which formulated the resolution which led to the general strike, would also be guilty of treason. The bill goes beyond the levying of war and says that any person who does anything preparatory to levying war is guilty of treason. This would include the writing of an article in a union journal - this has already happened - expressing the opinion that all members of the trade union movement should rise in rebellion against this measure and refuse to sell their labour until this savage piece of legislation is withdrawn. A person writing such an article in a union newspaper inciting people to do these things would be guilty of an act of treason punishable by death. Can any one justify this kind of legislation? Of course not!

It is nonsense to say that the provision is introduced in order to protect the Queen and because, when Prince Charles comes to Australia, he might be shot. Is the Government arguing that when Prince Charles comes to Australia some Australian may shoot him, and that there is quite a chance that one of the State governments will be so unpatriotic and treasonable that it will not be prepared to prosecute? What an absurdity! Does anybody suggest that any person could shoot another in this country without being dealt with by the law, irrespective of the State in which he lives? It is all nonsense to talk about this amendment being necessary for the purpose of protecting the Sovereign, as if the Sovereign has no protection now. Such an argument should never be put up seriously by any government.

The real reason for this reference to the Sovereign is that it is the sugar coating of the bitter pill. It is put in in order to make the proposition look reasonable, to lull the people into believing that the Government seeks merely to protect Prince Charles when he comes to Australia in a few years’ time because, without the provision, there would be a real possibility that some Australian would .shoot him and some State government would refuse to prosecute the person who committed the offence. But tucked away in the corner of this clause which contains the provision which we all support and the contingency which every Australian would lay down his life to prevent, are these vicious provisions which are aimed at the right of the trade union movement, by general strike, to alter the law - something which it has every right to do.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.-! listened with great interest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam).

He seeks to delete paragraph (c) from clause 23. I should like to ask him one question. If he were Attorney-General, as he might be one day in the dim and distant future, and there were an armed insurrection in the country, what would he suggest should be done if this paragraph is deleted? You could have an armed insurrection - an attempted coup d’etat. It has happened in other countries. What would be the position if we had in this country a conspiracy such as that which a royal commission found had as its objective the overthrow of the capitalist state? Suppose a royal commission found that the aim of a conspiracy was to smash the existing state, to overthrow the existing government by force and violence? As I look through sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 24, I find that it contains six paragraphs, in only one of which is the Attorney-General given power to deal with an armed insurrection - a Communist or fascist coup. That power is given by paragraph (c). If that paragraph is deleted, we are left only with paragraph (a) which deals with the Sovereign, paragraph (b) which deals with the heir apparent, paragraph (d) which relates to assistance given to an enemy at war with the Commonwealth, paragraph (e) which relates to instigating a foreigner to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or any Territory and paragraph (f) which relates to intention to do an act calculated to instigate a foreigner to make an armed invasion. Without paragraph (c) the clause would contain no power to deal with levying war or a conspiracy in Australia. I do not see anything in the proposed amendment to replace the present paragraph (c) of the proposed new section. If a royal commission should decide that the Communist Party, which owes allegiance to a foreign power, is guilty of conspiracy, there is nothing in the bill, other than paragraph (c), which would give the Attorney-General power to deal with such a conspiracy, or an armed insurrection to overthrow the Commonwealth by force.

Mr Whitlam:

– May I have the committee’s leave to answer briefly the question which the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) has put to me?

Mr Freeth:

– You are only keeping your own men out of the debate.

Mr Whitlam:

– The honorable member asked a question of me.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Freeth:

– No.

Mr Uren:

– I will move that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member is out of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has exhausted opportunities to speak.

Mr Whitlam:

– I will move that I have one minute in which to answer the question which was put to me by the honorable member for Hume.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The motion would be out of order.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- I point out for the information of the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) that if he were only to look one page ahead he would see that proposed new section 24aa. provides - (1.) A person shall not -

  1. do any act or thing in an attempt -

    1. to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage; or
    2. to overthrowby force or violence the established government of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country . . .

We propose to seek a qualification of that provision.

Mr Whitlam:

– Only as to sabotage. We support the rest.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is so. We are faced with the difficulty of proceeding through a very complicated measure in the face of almost continual gagging by the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick). I regret that he had to withdraw from the chamber but I am pleased to see him back because I should like to make a few remarks about his behaviour earlier this evening.

I am sure that the Parliament is not being served properly by the honorable member for Bruce (Mr. Snedden), in particular, who continually quotes precedents in an effort to bamboozle honorable members. I know that the honorable member for Bruce has learned all these precedents of the very dim past but this Parliament has the duty of laying down laws for the future. Although we may examine history to decide which things in the past have created great injustices, so that we may take every possible step to see that they do not occur again, we ought to be examining the spirit of the legislation and ensuring that the things we want to preserve are preserved.

I am sure that in this clause, as indeed in most clauses of the bill, we are departing from vital principles. I believe that this is a prosecutor’s bill. It is designed to make it easy for the prosecution to achieve its end when it aims to pull somebody up. We realize that there will not be any wholesale attack upon the ordinary people, but, unfortunately, this bill could be used to attack individual persons who may be absolutely innocent at the time. Because of that, it is essential that we scrutinize every clause closely in order to see whether it can be interpreted to the detriment of ordinary individuals. Our duty is not so much to look at precedents or to quote past law cases as to see what we can do to preserve and pass on to the future, the principles which protect our own rights. We believe that the provision relating to the levying of war or the doing of an act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth is wide in the extreme and, when considered in relation to the remainder of the bill, quite unjustified. We also believe that such wording as - assists by any means whatever an enemy at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared. is far too wide and too vague, and a threat to the ordinary individual freedoms. It is a threat to the freedom to take political action in the future. For those reasons, we say that such provisions ought to be deleted.

This evening, we saw in this chamber an almost unprecedented display by a senior Minister of the Crown. He used every trick of the debate in an attempt to prejudice the Labour Party and the justice of our cause. I do not believe there are any traitors in this House. I do not know a single Australian whom I would regard as likely to commit treason or treachery, and T have met a lot of Australians and have seen them under all sorts of conditions.

I believe that, first of all, the principle of Australianism ought to be one of tolerance and understanding and watchful encouragement of , ordinary political activities. Last Sunday I took the opportunity to look at the Eureka monument in Ballarat. It is a monument to an occurrence 106 years ago. On the face of that monument there is an inscription to this effect, “ Erected to the honored memory of those pioneers who fell in the sacred cause of liberty and of the soldiers who fell at duty’s call “. Some months after this occurrence the people concerned were exonerated by a jury, but if they had been taken in the heat of battle they would probably have been dealt with summarily and perhaps there would have been perpetrated an injustice of which we would all have been ashamed later.

My friend the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) reminds me that in the First World War, John Cain, one of Australia’s most honored and respected political leaders, was hailed before the court and charged with either sedition or conspiracy. During the last war there were unfortunate instances of injustices which all flowed from the vagueness of the laws and the interpretation of them.

In the long run the person who will allow the prosecutor to proceed is the Attorney-General himself. What is his record in these matters? What have we seen him do here to-night? Sitting behind my friend the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), I heard him make a valid and logical interjection. He said that the Attorney-General is sheltering behind the Sovereign. Although the Attorney-General was attempting to explain the very complicated and vital piece of legislation, in which the penalty for a breach of the law is death - in other words where people’s lives were at stake - he was taking the fanciful provisions at the beginning of the measure, which had little relevance - as was pointed out by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) - and was trying to label us as disloyal. I do not believe there is anybody disloyal on the other side of the chamber and I do not think anybody does this country any service - either the Parliament or the Labour Party or the people generally - by implying that any member of the Labour Party is in any way disloyal or guilty in this regard.

The Attorney-General is the man who is charged with the high and important duty of seeing that this legislation is implemented and that the rights and privileges and freedom of the people are protected. This man, by his character as he has demonstrated it here, and by his inheritance of the dark shades of McCarthyism from the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and other senior members of this Government, is, I believe, acting in such a way that nobody can put final trust in him. Last year I noted his activities associated with the peace congress. You may have all sorts of opinions about it but the peace congress in Melbourne was a legitimate piece of activity and we saw the Attorney-General attempt to suppress it. Yet he says he is horrified to think people do not trust him. I am prepared to trust him with freedom, but not with power.

I am not prepared to trust to the emotions of an Attorney-General of the future, unless it happens to be my friend the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) to deliberate in moments of crisis on emotional matters of treason, treachery and loyalty, in such a way that he will protect the people. We, therefore, want honorable members on the other side, who because of their numbers are charged with the duty of deciding whether or not this measure shall pass, to put into it protective provisions. We believe treachery and treason are the. darkest and direst of crimes, but we want placed in this measure protective clauses which cannot possibly sully the future with some of the tragedies of the past that have perpetrated great injustices and with which we would all be ashamed to be associated.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

.- I am indeed always very thrilled to hear the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) talk about the action he is prepared to take to protect the freedom of all the people of Australia. I hope I will be excused if I apologize for the fact that as far as my personal liberty or that of my wife and children is concerned, I do not accept his assurance in the fullness with which he would like me to accept it. I often feel - I do not say this to the Opposition parti cularly but to some who have been around this House in the last few days - that when proposals are made to restrain people such as the Communists or like influences, they always invoke the same cries. “ Inaction and indecision”, “Let us wait”, “It cannot be done “, “ Maintain our traditions “, “ Get more evidence “, and “ Determine the danger “. To this is added a confusion of ideas which few human minds can sort into any kind of sense. I think the debate to-night is an illustration of it. Communist propaganda attempts to destroy the very language by which an opposing ideology expresses itself.

Mr Whitlam:

– You are reading too fast.

Mr JESS:

– I am sick of the book you have been reading. Such words as “ Liberal “, “ Democratic “, “ progressive “, “ peace “, and “ justice “ have been stripped of their meaning. I agree with what the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) said and I would like to read some of the reasons why I consider that the provisions of this bill should be implemented. I hope the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) will not deviate from the opinion or findings of a royal commission which was headed by Mr. Justice Sir Charles Lowe of the Supreme Court of Victoria. This was the royal commission on communism in 1950. I have time to read only a few paragraphs which I think will impress some honorable members. At page 26 I read -

There appears to have been a Constitution intervening between 1929 and 1935 of which no copy is in evidence but there is some evidence that it stated the party’s objectives in the following words: - “ The Communist Party of Australia, which, in its capacity as leader and organizer of the revolutionary movement of the Proletariat, fights for the capture of the majority of the working class, and of large sections of poor and middle farmers for Communist principles and aims, for the colonial peoples in their struggles against imperialism, for the establishment of the dictatorship of the Proletariat, for the formation of an Australian Socialist Soviet Republic, for the total abolition of classes, and for the realization of socialism, which is the initial state of the Communist social order”.

The rest is irrelevant, but anybody can read it if he wishes. There is a further statement at page 71, following the heading, “The Famous Twenty-one Points”. In paragraph 4 we read1 -

A systematic and vigorous propaganda must be carried on in the Army. Communist nuclei should be formed in every military unit. Most of this work will be illegal, but to refuse to do it would be treason to revolutionary duty and incompatible with membership in the Third Internationale.

This is about the Australian Communist Party. Paragraph 6 reads -

It is the duty of every party desiring to belong to the Third Internationale, to denounce not only avowed patriotism, but also dishonest and hypocritical pacificism and systematically to demonstate to the workers that without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism no international court of arbitration, no discussion of the reduction of armaments, no “ democratic “ reorganization of the League of Nations can preserve mankind from fresh imperialistic wars.

I am sorry to read at length, but I have had nothing but Halsbury all night. At page 72 in paragraph 8, with reference to colonies and oppressed nationalities, I read -

Parties belonging to the Communist Internationale are duty-bound pitylessly to unmask the acts of their own imperialists in the colonies, to support every movement for emancipation in the colonies not only with words, but with acts, to demand the expulsion of their own imperialists from those colonies to nourish in the hearts of the workers in their own countries a genuine fraternal feeling for the working population of the colonies and for the oppressed nationalities, and to sustain a systematic education among the troops of their countries against all oppression of the people in the colonies.

I will give honorable members opposite the book later, if they wish, and they can fill in the gaps. At page 74, in paragraph 15, I read -

Parties desiring to belong to the Communist Internationale should give unqualified support to all Soviet republics in their struggle against the counter-revolution. They should untiringly preach refusal to transport munitions or supplies to the enemies of the Soviet Republic.

I will not go any further. Honorable members opposite can fill in the gaps later. On page 135 of the report, Mr. Justice Lowe had this to say -

Does the Australian Communist Party or any of its associated organizations advocate or encourage the overthrow by force or violence of established government? I have now reached the stage at which I must answer the question - whether the Australian Communist Party by its constitution or propaganda or any of its members or any of its associated organizations or persons by propaganda or otherwise, advocates or encourages the overthrow by force or violence of established government . . . The question dates, in my understanding of it, to the over throw of parliamentary government as we know it, in which at the head there is the King’s representative, in which the executive authority is in the hands of a ministry which enjoys the support of the majority of Parliament, in which Parliament is .a deliberative assembly and is itself elected on a popular basis by such of the people as possess electoral qualifications, and :in which the judicial power is in the last resort exercised by a judiciary whose tenure is independent of the control of the executive.

Mr. Justice Lowe completed his remarks on this aspect by stating -

I draw attention to but do not repeat what I have said above on the question of time when such overthrow is designed. It is summed up in the evidence of Gibson that the overthrow is intended “ at the earliest practicable time “.

Honorable gentlemen opposite will no doubt roar with laughter because Mr. Justice Lowe made his remarks in 1950 and it is now 1960. But because ten years have elapsed and the events that were predicted have not come to pass, is that any reason why this country should not take the necessary steps to protect the way of life that the majority of Australian people love and wish to preserve?

Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes

– I have been intrigued to-night to hear a number of honorable members refer to legal precedents. I cannot help but wonder why they resort to this practice of quoting what Lord Mansfield said in 1781 and the like. I am well aware that some enthusiastic lawyers from various parts of Australia inundated members of Parliament with this kind of thing some weeks ago, but I think it is a reflection on honorable members that we should have to resort to this kind of second-class mail to the extent that we have. We have been hearing about Lord Mansfield for some days now. My colleague, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), has suggested that we might do better to talk about Jayne Mansfield and about other things in which the people of Australia might be more interested.

The incredible part of the whole business is that we are hearing now about what Lord Mansfield said in 1781. No doubt, in twenty years we shall hear what was said by Sir Garfield Barwick - an eminent lawyer in the opinion of most Australians and most honorable members in this place - but I am beginning to believe that some honorable members on the Government side do not hold him in such high esteem from the point of view of legal ability. I know that some honorable members opposite - the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Chresby) for example - in the near future will talk about the legal precedents which were set down by Dr. Evatt who, during his sojourn in this place, was completely and consistently vilified by honorable members on the Government side. Dr. Evatt is a lawyer who can lay claim to long experience in law, and what he says must be given weight.

The honorable members who consistently quote Lord Mansfield are like the honorable members who consistently quote the Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “. They would not recognize the fellow who writes the articles that they quote if they passed him in the passageway, but whatever he prints in the “ Daily Telegraph “ becomes holy writ to them. They place such a high value on it that they quote it in the Parliament. We are sick and tired of that kind of thing. I do not think that the average Australian of the kind who came into King’s Hall yesterday and during the week cares two pence about Lord Mansfield. Most Australians merely hope that the Government will bring down a bill that the ordinary people can understand. 1 am reminded of the words of Henry Lawson. Although I cannot remember them in detail, he said something to the effect that we drivel and croak and grovel until our voice goes further than the college walls, but keep out of the tracks we travel. The Government needs to take care because it is travelling in the tracks of the people of Australia. It is cloaking this legislation with all kinds of mysterious jargon. The people just do not know what it is all about.

The Attorney-General has been at great pains to make an impact on the people who know something about the law in this country. It is important that the law should be stated in plain English because it will affect the ordinary Australian people. T do not think that we have to accommodate people like the Attorney-General so far as this kind of legislation is concerned.

Let us consider proposed new section 24 (1 .). It is a crime to kill, maim, wound, imprison or restrain the Sovereign. Why not? It is a crime to kill, maim, or wound any one in this country or, for that matter, in the world. Why do we have to make such special mention of this? There may be a simple answer but the AttorneyGeneral has not yet told us what it is. It is a crime to kill the eldest son and heir apparent or the Queen Consort. Surely the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) was being pretty reasonable earlier to-night when he contended that the Attorney-General was making too much play about these preliminary^ provisions. The position is clear. It is a crime to kill the eldest son and heir apparent of the Sovereign. The fact of the matter is that it is a crime to kill any one - even the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). The whole thing is out of date. Who seeks these days to kill the King or the Queen? There is a great benevolence in the world to-day towards the Sovereign. People have attempted to kill some of the Presidents of the United States of America and the political leaders of many countries, but there is no special provision in relation to political leaders in this country who may attract some antagonism.

Any person who kills the Queen will not receive any harsher sentence than he would receive if he killed the most humble person in the community. As I read the legislation, that is the position. I ask the Attorney-General whether I am correct.

The proposed new section goes on to provide that it is a crime to levy war, or to do any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth. We have heard Lord Mansfield quoted on this aspect. If legal precedents count for anything, there is undoubtedy an apparent danger in this section. Certain actions of the kind to which Lord Mansfield has referred in his judgments as insurgence have been characteristic of the great fight of the Labour movement. The Labour movement was built on action such as that at Eureka many years ago. We have seen action since then in many parts of Australia. We have seen trade unionists rally and march from Wynyard Park in Sydney and from the Yarra Bank in Victoria to express their feelings on some controversial legislation of the kind that we are discussing now. I do not doubt that, according to Lord Mansfield’s interpretation of this particular provision, if the trade unionists who came into

King’s Hall yesterday had found themselves in trouble with the Commonwealth police force - the authority which keeps order in this building - they would have found themselves in difficulties.

I have participated in trade union rallies. On one occasion the trade unionists rallied at Wynyard Park to support the proposition that the Indonesians should be given independence. We know that this became an accomplished fact and that the world conceded the legitimacy of the Indonesians’ claims. In the circumstances, it was pretty dangerous for the people in Sydney to express themselves as they did on that occasion. It was just as well that there were no provisions in the Crimes Act such as are now proposed or they would indeed have been in trouble.

There are other highly controversial features in this bill. I feel that proposed new section 24 is such a drag-net that the Attorney-General seems to have disregarded the practical possibility of implementing the provisions that he has read into this legislation. He has even removed the territorial limitation of the legislation. We say that any person at all who does these things is liable to be tried for treason. Although the essence of the crime of treason lies in the very violation of allegiance to the Sovereign by British subjects, this proposed new section refers to any person at all. He could be some one in some other country. The Attorney-General, in his endeavour to throw out the drag-net - to weave such a wide web - has brought down legislation of a type probably unprecedented in modern history, so anxious is he to ensure that there will be no loophole through which any one can escape.

How can you indict some one for treason who does not even live in this country? Under this legislation, a person does not have to be a national of this country to be guilty of treason. I think the AttorneyGeneral ought to have a look at that particular aspect of the matter as well.

Mr Curtin:

– It will keep Castro up of nights.

Mr L R JOHNSON:

– Well, I think we may even contemplate Castro. One can think of so many eventualities in respect of this legislation - this business of levying war and the like - and can recognize the great danger that is inherent in it.

New section 24 (d) of the legislation, for example, provides that it will be treason to assist - by any means whatever an enemy at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared;

Those are pretty vague generalities considering that the penalty will be death. The Opposition feels that the crime of treason should be more effectively defined than it is in this legislation. That is the very essence of the traditional system of justice in Australia and, indeed, in British countries generally. As I read this provision, an enemy does not even need to be a nation. Certainly an enemy does not need to be a country against whom we have declared war. An enemy could be an insurgent group within a country, such as Malayan terrorists or Communists fighting in a place in respect of which the United Nations has taken some action.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

.-! feel emboldened to enter this debate, particularly as the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), has quoted Halsbury, and the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) has quoted Lord Justice Mansfield. I feel emboldened to enter where angels in legal matters - if legal men can be so described - have feared to tread. We have become somewhat confused. As a layman, I shall endeavour to clarify the position.

It seems to me that the very essence of treason is an attempt to overthrow by force our way of life, and that means, particularly, our Sovereign, our parliamentary institution and the integrity of our territory. These are things upon which the whole framework of our life depends. An attempt to overthrow any of these things, is, of course, the essence of the crime of treason. I do not propose to say very much so far as the Sovereign is concerned. Quite plainly, these provisions are essential and I put it no higher than to say that the dignity of this Parliament is such that it should not have to have to depend upon the action of State Parliaments. It is an essential part of the protection of our way of life that we should do it in a way that is consonant with the dignity of this Parliament. I shall say no more about that matter than that.

The overthrow of our parliamentary institution is perhaps a matter in these times that is of greater consequence than was the protection of the Sovereign in earlier times. The Opposition desires to delete paragraph (c) of proposed new section 24. - the paragraph that refers to the levying of war - because, it says, the paragraph contains a vague and imprecise phrase. It is a phrase that has existed in the law for many generations and has been the subject of many judicial decisions. The whole of English law - I am speaking only as a layman - is based on case law. The whole of our common law is based on case law. That is to say, from inumerable decisions in particular cases the judges have deduced principles, and when a new case arises an attempt is made to bring the circumstances of that case within the principles that can be drawn from the innumerable cases that have gone before.

If that means imprecision, the whole of our common law is imprecise and it is time we diced it. Of course, that would be absurd. Again, from time to time we try to codify the law and put it into statute form, but that does not mean that we get precision, because after you codify the law and put it into an act of Parliament the act has to be interpreted. All of us are familiar, for instance, with the provision of our own Constitution that trade between the States shall be absolutely free. What phrase could be simpler than that? How simple, how straight-forward and how precise! Yet, of course, there have been more cases on that matter than there are barnacles on the bottom of a ship that has been at sea for many years. To say this phrase is imprecise simply because it is based upon common law or case law is to say that the whole of our common law and statute law is imprecise. Of course, that would be an absurd contention.

Honorable members have quoted Halsbury and Lord Justice Mansfield. Back in my student days I read an elementary text-book on criminal law by Kenny, a jurist of some standing. I intend to read from it because it expresses the matter in simple terms for us laymen. I think it sets out ‘the position quite clearly. Under the heading “ Levying war against the King in his realm “ he stated -

War, here, is not limited to the true “ war “ of international law; but will include any forcible disturbance that is produced by a considerable number of persons, and is directed at some purpose which is not of a private but of a “ general “ character, e.g. to release the prisoners in all the gaols. It is not essential that the offenders should be in military array or be armed with military weapons. It is quite sufficient if there be assembled a large body of men who intend to debar the Government from the free exercise of its lawful powers and are ready to resist with violence any opposition.

This kind of treason is therefore distinguishable from a mere riot by nothing but the “ generality “ of the object which is aimed at by those taking part in it. Thus the Edinburgh rioters in the Porteous case of 1736, rendered familiar to English readers by Scott’s “Heart of Midlothian”, were, after mature consideration, prosecuted only for riot, and not for treason; inasmuch as, though they sought to interfere with the Crown’s prerogative of mercy, they resisted merely its being exercised in the particular case of the detested Captain Porteous, and not the general exercise of it. “ It is neither the numbers concerned, nor the force employed, but the object which the people have in view, that determines the character of their crime; which will be a riot or a treason, according as this object is of a private and local or of a public and general character “. Thus in Damaree’s Case (1709), in Queen Anne’s reign, a riotous tumult with the object of demolishing all accessible Nonconformist meeting-houses was held to amount to a treason; on the ground that it was to be regarded as a public resistance to the Toleration Act (which had legalised such meetings) and an attempt to render it ineffectual by numbers and open force.

The difference between treason and riot has been made perfectly clear in innumerable cases which have illuminated the phrase “ levies war “ which is used in the bill.

Now I come to the final consideration. The Attorney-General is a most distinguished lawyer - the most distinguished lawyer in this country apart from those who sit upon the bench. There is no question about that. He has thought fit to use this phrase for reasons that I, in my simple layman’s way, can recognize as being precise enough. I am prepared to accept the view of such a distinguished lawyer in preference to a lot of views that have been put by the Opposition.

Mr UREN:
Reid

.- This is the first amendment in reference to treason, treachery, sabotage and espionage. Any person who can add two and two together knows that this bill is designed to tighten up the Crimes Act for the extension of the cold war policy of the Government. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) at the United Nations General Assembly recently, extended the cold war policy in the international field, and of course he got his instruction to tighten up the internal cold war policy of the Government. The honorable member for La Trobe (Mr. Jess) quoted extracts from a report on a royal commission on communism held in Victoria in 1950. I remind honorable members that the people of Australia were asked to say in a referendum whether the Communist Party would be outlawed in Australia. The people decided that it would not be outlawed and that the Communist Party had its democratic rights just as have any other political party which functions within the Constitution of Australia.

We know that the Government is trying to bring in the Communist Party Dissolution Bill through the back door, but we on this side of the chamber understand the struggle of the working people of Australia to face these issues. We understand their struggle and we represent a truly Australian field of thought. We stand for civil liberties and freedom for all people in Australia. Therefore, we are fighting the obnoxious provisions of this bill.

At eleven minutes past 5 o’clock this afternoon, the Attorney-General said, “ The Labour Party has made a deal with someone that this bill has to be opposed at all stages”. The Attorney-General nods approval. He agrees that that was what he said. Later, in an interjection, the honorable gentleman said, “The Communists began the agitation against this bill “. He has closed his eyes to the fact that learned gentlemen like Mr. John Kerr, Q.C. opposed the bill. Does anybody suggest that Mr. Kerr, Q.C, has Communist tendencies? He is a great local advocate and an anti-Communist within the trade union struggle. Sir John Latham has criticized the bill. Is he pro-Communist? The bill has been opposed and criticized by Professor Geoffrey Sawyer, Professor Julius Stone and the Presbyterian Church. A letter that has been sent by the AttorneyGeneral to the Presbyterian Church is being brushed aside because it has not proved to the satisfaction of the Church that there are sufficient safeguards in relation to the measure. The Methodist Church and the Quakers have criticized the bill. There has been wide criticism of the attack made on civil liberties and freedoms by these amendments to the Crimes Act. An amendment which has been presented by the AttorneyGeneral is designed to insert in proposed section 24 (1.) a new paragraph. The proposed sub-section will read -

A person who -

  1. assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy -
  2. at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treason, and liable to punishment of death.

That is quite clear. Government supporters have approved of this extension of the cold war. The honorable member for McPherson (Mr. Barnes) said, “We are at war with Russia “ but he sells his wool to Russia. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) sends wool to Russia and China, but he and his colleague say, “ We are at war with China and Russia “. The Opposition has made it quite clear that we encourage people to trade with those countries, but we do not want hypocrisy. We would not say, “ Trade with them “, one moment and then say, “ We are at war with them “. Things were said about certain capitalist institutions which did that during the 1914-18 war.

We know that honorable members on the Government side are great advocates of the preservation of the status quo. I make no reference to the Attorney-General’s knowledge of the law. I acknowledge his knowledge. He knows the law. He is the representative of the big money interests. I am well aware of that. Earlier he made a sneering interjection at the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen). May I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the fact that the honorable member for Parkes served this country well in the First World War as a soldier. The AttorneyGeneral should look at his own record of war service. It is all very well to make accusations against a famous son of our country, the honorable member for Parkes. He served this country with distinction in the First World War and in the Second World War, and fought for the liberties of all Australians. He has been a battler for the under-dog at all times, but men like the Attorney-General sneer and cast innuendoes at the honorable member. During the war, the Attorney-General was the representative of big business. He was their mouthpiece while the honorable member for Parkes was fighting for justice and liberty.

I have referred to the amendment presented by the Attorney-General with reference to persons assisting an enemy at war with the Commonwealth whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared. I direct the attention of honorable members to a statement by the Professor of International Law at Sydney University, Professor Julius Stone published in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of 1st November. Professor Stone was replying to certain statements made by the AttorneyGeneral when he returned from the United Nations General Assembly. Professor Stone said that the Attorney-General had clarified some matters but left three “ difficulties “. Referring to these difficulties, Professor Stone stated -

The second relates to the definition of “ enemy “ and the third relates to the definition of “ war “.

It remains essential that a more precise definition of the term “enemy” be used in the treason provisions of the bill.

In law, whether international or national, the word “ enemy “ is quite ambiguous. It can mean an enemy State, an enemy national or a person of any nationality who lives in enemy territory.

This bill is too vague in many respects. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has expressed the Opposition’s viewpoint on this matter. We on this side fully support the attitude that has been expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We will fight the issue, clause for clause. I hope the Attorney-General has had a look at himself whilst he has been outside the chamber and that he will not continue to gag the debate as he did earlier to-day. I hope he will allow free discussion so that we may express our point of view. I know that eventually the Government will force the bill through, but at least it should recognize our right to express the point of view of the workers. Otherwise, we shall see how much freedom really exists under this Government and the type of government it is. Trade union delegations, representing many thousands of workers, have come to Parliament House and entered King’s Hall to interview parliamentarians. While they have been here, security personnel have mingled amongst them. We know security officers are suspicious and that they are trying to find out who is Schmidt the spy, who is a Communist, and who is a radical.

THE CHAIRMAN.- Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr. Freeth) put -

That the question be now put -

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 33

Majority . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney - General · Parramatta · LP

– I move -

In proposed section 24 sub-section (1.), omit paragraph (d), insert the following paragraph: - “ (d) assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy -

at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and

specified by proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; “.

This is the amendment of which I spoke earlier and it has two elements. First of all, it inserts the words “ with intent to assist “ which, as I have already indicated is an extension of the clause which already contains the word “ assists “. As a means of demonstrating good faith in the matter I have suggested that they be put in. The other change made by the proposed amendment to the bill covers this point: That whereas the bill provides that the offence of assisting an enemy at war with the Commonwealth is an offence whether or not there is a declaration of the existence of a state of war, it has been said by a number of people that somebody might assist an enemy with intent to assist him, without knowing that he was an enemy. I find this difficult to believe. The whole point of the offence is that he must have an intent to assist an enemy. For somebody to say that one might accidentally, but with intent, assist a chap he did not know was an enemy does not seem to make sense. However, there is no need to leave any doubt in the matter, so I have made an additional element in this paragraph - that the enemy will have been proclaimed to be an enemy of the Commonwealth, by the Executive. In this case the proclamation does not have to follow any parliamentary process. It is left entirely to the Executive. I think honorable members should observe that the clause still requires that the enemy be, in fact, an enemy and, in fact, at war with the Commonwealth. Therefore, a declaration or proclamation will in itself not be proof that the party is an enemy or is at war; but it will be an indispensable part of the offence that there should have been a proclamation.

At first sight, it looks a little odd that the first part of the proposed paragraph states - assists by any means whatever . . an enemy . . . whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared. In the following subparagraph it is stated that an enemy must have been declared to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth. There is no inconsistency in these two things, because the declarations to which the two subparagraphs refer are quite different. The first has reference to a former international courtesy by which one nation did not begin war until it had announced that it was at war. That habit has long since fallen into disuse. The second proclamation has nothing to do with the international situation. It is purely for domestic purposes and for the purposes of the section.

I feel that this is an extremely cautious step to take, because we all know that whenever this country has been at war the Prime Minister of the day has announced it in this Chamber, and few people would be in doubt as to who was or was not an enemy at war with this country. However, some point was made in this respect, and I have thought it better to set these things at rest when they can be set at rest. Therefore, I submit this provision for a proclamation to be made of an enemy. If that is not made, the offence of treason will not be committed. The offence has to be assistance to an enemy with intent to assist the enemy, and the enemy must be in fact, an enemy and in fact at war with the Commonwealth. In addition, the Executive must have declared the party to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth. I do not think I can go further in trying to make this so plain that nobody, however illinformed, could manage to misunderstand what duty was being cast upon him.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The amendment proposed is acceptable to the Opposition because it expresses completely the sense of an amendment which the Opposition had circulated on this subject to provide that the proposed section 24 should contain the following paragraph: - does any act with intent to assist an enemy that the Governor-General by proclamation has declared to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.

Both the Opposition’s and the Government’s proposed amendments effectuate one of the objects of the motion which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) moved during the course of his second-reading speech - that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted in order to cure specific faults. Among those was the fault that the bill failed to provide means of specifying enemy countries or enemy persons whom it would be an offence to assist. It was necessary for people to know the enemies whom it would be treason to assist. There can no longer, therefore, be the uncertainty that there could have been in the Pacific context in recent years, and genuinely it would not have been so-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am sorry that I must interrupt the honorable member. The chair will be resumed at midnight.

Sitting suspended from 11.30 p.m. to 12 midnight. Friday, 18th November, 1960.

Mr WHITLAM:

– When your predecessor, Mr. Temporary Chairman, suspended the sitting, I had been making the point that under paragraph (d) of sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 24, as originally introduced in the bill, it could have been genuinely difficult for Australians to know which countries were at war with us and were our enemies. There have been situations in the last decade in which that difficulty could have arisen, and unfortunately it is possible that such a difficulty could arise in the years immediately ahead. The amendment, however, cures that position. For that reason, we support it.

The Attorney-General has referred again to the fact that he has put in, for greater precaution, the words “ with intent to assist “, to make it plain that assistance by any means whatever has to be deliberate. Here again, Sir, we sought the amendment, and we support it. I must say, with all respect, that the Attorney-General has brought upon himself the doubts to which he has referred and to which he has objected, because the words “assists by any means, whatever “ occur in three places in the- bill which he has introduced. They occur in two’ places in the sense for which he contends and for which, I should think, there is adequate basis. They are in proposed section 24 (1.) (d), where it is provided that it is treason to assist by any means whatever an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.

I should think that there, using traditional words, it would be necessary for the act of assistance to be deliberate and to be a traitorous one. In the circumstances of that paragraph, it is quite plain that persons would be breaking their allegiance. Again, Sir, the term is used in sub-section (2.) of proposed section 24:aa, where it is provided that it is treachery for a person to assist by any means whatever any persons against whom a part of the Defence Force which is on, or is proceeding, to, service outside the Commonwealth, is opposed or is likely to be opposed. I should think that any Australians - because proposed section 24aa (2.) applies- to matters within the Commonwealth -

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– These provisions of the bill do not depend on allegiance.

Mr WHITLAM:

– If that is so, the same objections could have been made to the two provisions to which I have already referred, as quite clearly were made to proposed section 24aa (1.) (b) (ii), under which it is treachery to assist by any means whatever an enemy of and at war with a proclaimed country. There was clearly no question of allegiance between Australians and a country at war with a proclaimed country. That is to say, Australians owe no allegiance to second or third parties outside Australia.

The long statements that the AttorneyGeneral has issued about intent to break allegiance having to be assumed, of having traitorous intent, and of having an intent to betray your own country or your own side, would not apply. Accordingly, Sir, there was a very good basis, in proposed section 24aa (1.) (b) (ii), to make it plain that there had to be intent and that mere inadvertence was not sufficient. In view of what the Attorney-General has just interjected, I think it is very wise to do as we wished to do - to express that intent was required in regard to the two other matters of assisting opponents of our de fence forces and assisting enemies at war with the Commonwealth. If the position was as clear as the Attorney-General has asserted on two occasions in the last few hours, there was no need to put in these amendments. The amendments were sought, he has yielded to them, and we support them.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.I am not so sure that the situation is as satisfactory as it might appear. I listened very closely to what the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) said, and in my opinion it did not meet the objection raised by the Opposition. We were concerned originally regarding the first proposal which stated, “ assist by any means whatever an enemy at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared.” If that provision had remained and we had been asked to vote on it, we would have voted against it because we considered it not to be sufficiently precise and that it would be difficult for a person to know exactly when he was offending or otherwise.

The Attorney-General’s interpretation appeared to meet the situation indicated by the Opposition, but when we consider his comments we begin to ask ourselves whether the proposed amendment does in fact meet the situation from the opposition’s viewpoint. The Attorney-General has said that it may appear that paragraphs (i) and (ii) are somewhat in conflict. He then read the paragraphs out and said that they were not really in conflict, because the first one dealt with international situation only, and was unchanged. That is to say, it is as it was originally in the bill. If the words “ at war with tie Commonwealth, whether or not a state of war has been declared “ remain unchanged, it means that the provision is still in an imprecise form. If I understood the Attorney-General correctly, paragraph (ii), which we thought met the situation and which stated, “ specified by proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth “, does not apply in regard to the international situation but deals only with the internal situation. The AttorneyGeneral may laugh, but I think that if we refer to “ Hansard “ it will be proved that what I am saying is perfectly correct. Therefore, we have not advanced very far at all.

It the paragraph applies only to the internal situation, I should like the AttorneyGeneral to explain how you would declare an enemy internally. Is the provision to apply to a group of people? Do you declare a trade union to be an enemy, and are political organizations to be declared enemies? Having regard to the manner in which the provision has been presented to us, it does not appear to me, as a layman, that its intention has been expressed sufficiently clearly to know what is meant by it. I should like the Attorney-General to let us know whether the interpretation I have placed upon his remarks is the correct one.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I am afraid I cannot resolve the schism, if that is the correct word, on the Opposition side. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has said that the amendment is quite all right, that that is what they sought and that it fills the bill. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has said that he does not know. If I am to take any notice of the Deputy Leader, there is no need for further discussion, and accordingly I move -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 33

Majority

19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– I move -

In proposed section 24, sub-section (1.), omit paragraph (f).

We move this amendment because we object to making it treason to form an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph of the sub-section, and manifesting that intention by an overt act. We object to this paragraph because it covers the levying of war or the doing of any act preparatory to levying of war against the Commonwealth. If the paragraph referred to all the preceding paragraphs other than paragraph (c), which is the one referring to the levying of war, we would not object to it. Since it does refer to paragraph (c), we are moved to vote against it.

The Attorney-General said that all these definitions of treason were either in the common law or in the Queensland criminal code drawn by Sir Samuel Griffith. It is interesting to note, as I pointed out before, that neither in the common law, in the statute of Edward III., nor in the Queensland criminal code of Sir Samuel Griffith, is it provided that it is treason to do any act preparatory to levying war. This has never been previously classed as treason in any English-speaking country, as far as I can discover. No honorable member has referred to it as being treason, and the Attorney-General, in his multitudinous opportunities to comment on the matter, has not referred to it. We can take it, therefore, that it has never been provided, before the introduction of this bill, that it is treason to do any act preparatory to levying war.

The Queensland criminal code, from which many of the phrases in this proposed section come, does provide that it is treason to form an intention to do any such act as aforesaid, and manifest such intention by any overt act. The sub-section which makes it treason to do so occurs immediately after the two sub-sections corresponding to paragraphs (a) and (b) in this legislation. That is, in the Queensland criminal code, which has been copied in Western Australia and Tasmania, it is treason to kill the Sovereign, or to kill the eldest son or heir apparent, et cetera, or to form an intention to do any such act and manifest such intention by any overt act. But it is not provided in Queensland, Western Australia or Tasmania, the three Australian States in which there are statutory provisions covering treason, that it is treason to form an intention to do any of the other acts which are described as treason. Here, again, the proposed section 24 makes more things treason than have been treason hitherto. I would ask the AttorneyGeneral to explain, if he will, how one would prove that an accused person had formed an intention to do any act preparatory to levying war. It is the forming of an intention to do an act preparatory. There has been no explanation of what preparatory means in this context: It could indicate either causation or sequence, that is it could indicate that a person was aiming to levy war or had done something, perhaps inadvertently, towards levying war. But the re-arrangement which the Attorney has made of the Queensland provisions has resulted in the extension of those provisions and will mean that it will be made treason to do things henceforth in Australia which it has not been treason to do in Australia hitherto, and which it has not been treason to do hitherto in the United Kingdom.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) was very careful to say that, so far as he had been able to ascertain, the words “ does an act preparatory to levying war “ do not appear anywhere else. That was a guarded statement. The fact is that those words are to be found in the Canadian code. But the honorable member has not found them. Apparently he has not looked there. These words were taken from the Canadian code, as were some other words that appear in the measure.

As I understand the situation, the Opposition does not object to the forming of an intention to do a treasonable act and the manifesting of that intention by an overt act being regarded as treason. I think I reproduce the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition accurately when I say that he said that, if the words “ levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth “ were not in the proposed new section, the Opposition would have no objection to this provision.

Mr Whitlam:

– That is so.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– That being so, not much discussion is called for, because we have already discussed and have voted upon the question as to whether the words “ levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth “, shall remain in the bill. The only objection the Opposition has is an objection to something on which we have already voted and which we have adopted.

Mr Whitlam:

– That is right.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– I have already answered the query raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as to whether this provision is to be found elsewhere. The matter does not call for any discussion.

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:

– The question now before the chair is -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, are you putting the amendment or the motion for the closure of the debate?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! I am putting the amendment.

Mr Ward:

– You should be putting the motion for the closure of the debate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! No division was called for when I put the question, “ That the question be now put “.

Opposition members. - A division was called for.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! I have given my ruling. The motion for the closure of the debate was agreed to.

Mr Ward:

– No, it was not.

Mr Pollard:

– Nothing of the sort.

Mr Ward:

– The question was never put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! A full report of what happened will appear in “ Hansard “. The question now before the Chair is -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

Mr Ward:

– That is not the question at all. The motion to apply the gag is the question now before the Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order!

Opposition members. - The gag is the question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order!

Opposition members. - The gag is the question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! I shall take action against honorable members shortly.

Mr Ward:

– The gag is the question. We want the motion for the gag to be put.

Mr OPPERMAN:
CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– Do not be such larrikins.

Mr Ward:

– The gag is the question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! In my position as the Temporary Chairman I am advised by the Clerk. He confirms my ruling.

Mr Ward:

– The gag is the question.

Opposition members. - The gag! The gag! The gag!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Opposition members. - The gag! The gag! The gag!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The question before the Chair is -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

Those in favour say “ Aye “, to the contrary “ No “. I think the “ Ayes “ have it.

Opposition members. - No!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Is a division required?

Opposition members. - Yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

The committee will divide. Ring the bells. (The bells being rung) -

Opposition members. - One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, out! (The bells having ceased to ring) -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Lock the doors.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has exhausted the time available to him to speak on clause 23 of the bill. He will need to obtain leave to move his next amendment to the clause. Is leave granted?

Honorable members. - Yes.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

– by leave - I move -

In proposed section 24, sub-section (1.). omit “’ the punishment of death “’, insert “ imprisonment for life “.

This is, I think, one of the only two instances in Commonwealth statutes in which the death penalty is provided for, the other being in the Defence Act, where there are qualifications on the application of this penalty. Proposed new section 24 of the principal act will be a re-enactment of the section dealing with treason. It will be an amplification of the law of treason, and apparently anything that is treason in any other English-speaking country is to be dragged into this new section, and we are to impose a blanket penalty of death on conviction for any of these offences which are described as treason.

The consideration of this proposed new section is a proper time for this Parliament io discuss the question of the death penalty. This is a subject which has engaged the attention of several State Parliaments and of the United Kingdom Parliament in recent years. There have been protracted debates in all the chambers of those Parliaments on the question of the death penalty. I hope that on this question at least the Attorney-General will not seek to abridge and truncate the debate. We have already, of course, dealt with another matter - the provisions with respect to habitual criminals - which has engaged the Parliaments of States and of the United Kingdom for many hours at a time. We were given only one hour to consider it. This question of the death penalty has engaged most English-speaking Parliaments for many hours in recent years. We are expected to debate it at the end of the week at 12.30 a.m. I hope that we shall be given adequate time in which to discuss it, although this, of course, is not a proper hour at which to discuss it.

It is difficult to know what is the validity of the death penalty as distinct from the penalty of life imprisonment in respect of treason. If a person commits treason and succeeds, there is never any penalty, of course. As Sir John Harington said -

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Most of the revolutions in history, including those in British history, have in fact started as treason. If you succeed in your treasonous enterprises, there is no penalty at all. The penalty applies only to those who fail.

Mr Stokes:

– Like the penalty for suicide!

Mr WHITLAM:

– Precisely. The penalty is presumably meant to be a deterrent. The death penalty is not the most severe deterrent which has been tried for treason. Previously, the penalty for a person convicted of unsuccessful treason was hanging, drawing and quartering, and I am not sure whether castration was not involved also. This was the law in Australia also, until quite recently. Proceedings for treason have been instituted against only one person in Australia - ex-Major Cousins. He was committed for trial and the State AttorneyGeneral concerned declined to present an indictment. If he had done so and if a jury had convicted ex-Major Cousins, the only penalty which could have been inflicted would have been hanging, drawing and quartering. To that extent, I suppose, we can be thankful for the mercy which is extended here, in that one would be hung outright.

Hanging, or the death penalty, is outmoded in most parts of the world. It has been abolished in most of the Englishspeaking countries. It has been abolished in most of the Scandinavian countries. It has been abolished even in countries such as Portugal which are regarded as being relatively backward, and in most Asian countries. The abolition of the death penalty has never resulted in any increase in the incidence of the crimes for which it was previously imposed. That is, it is not an effective deterrent. If it had been an effective deterrent, we should have noticed, when it was abolished, an increase in the crimes for which it had previously been imposed. No statistics have ever shown an increase in crimes for which there used to be a death penalty and for which there is no longer such a penalty. Furthermore, if the severity or gruesomeness of a penalty deters, we should, of course, go back to the days when we had much more severe penalties for treason and other crimes than we have now.

But there are two other things which ought to impel us to abolish the death penalty now, Sir. The first is that there have been cases in which persons have been convicted of crimes which attracted the death penalty and have suffered that penalty, it later being established, or at least appearing highly probable, that they were not guilty. The sentence, of course, made it impossible to resuscitate or resurrect them, and there is no vindication for them except in the eyes of history. The other reason that ought to prompt us to abolish the death penalty is that capital punishment is just as barbaric and inexcusable in the hands of states as it is in the hands of individuals. As we know, it barbarizes and unsettles the executioners themselves. There have been many instances in which people who have earned their living as executioners - the occupation is a lawful one, of course - have in fact become deranged. Not long ago in Australia’s history, executions were carried out in public, and it is to the disgrace of our grandparents that they used to flock to such spectacles. We, of course, are heartily ashamed of the way in which they did so. The Madame Defarge mentality is one of which, happily, we have rid ourselves. The whole community is barbarized by the taking of this short-cut to avenging itself by punishing those who break its codes.

The penalty of life imprisonment is an extraordinarily hard one. Probably, in a sense, it is no mercy for the person who suffers it. Sometimes, it is said that persons who are imprisoned for life would rather have had the death penalty. I doubt it, because I think that everybody hangs to life however miserable he is economically or physically. It is true, of course, that life imprisonment is a much more expensive sentence for the community which imposes it than is the relatively economical penalty of execution. But so long as we execute people, whatever methods we use, we in fact take the short-cut to salving our consciences and to avenging ourselves on individuals.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– And we destroy God-given life.

Mr WHITLAM:

– As I have said, I think it is inhuman and immoral for a state authority, so to speak, itself to take life, just as it is for individuals to do so.

We on this side of the committee believe that the Parliament should expunge from the statute-book the death penalty in one of the two instances in which it occurs in Commonwealth statutes, the other being the Defence Act. That act is not under review now, but the Crimes Act, we are told, is being reviewed and modernized by means of this bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- I support the case made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) as forthrightly as one can support it. I believe that the death penalty is the lowest act of barbarism. In ordinary civil cases in which people have committed murder it is sustained vengeance and there is no justification for it. Vengeance is probably one of the lowest motives that can activate either the community or the individual. I believe that there is nothing in either history or statistics to justify the retention of the death penalty on the statute-book. I would completely dissociate myself from the act of any government which implemented the death penalty. It is to the recurring disgrace of some sections of the Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party that they continue to carry out the death penalty. Recently, there has been a case in Western Australia and the death penalty has also been carried out in South Australia. Fortunately, in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania it has been abolished. In Queensland it was abolished almost 40 years ago. It is to the credit of the present Victorian Government that it has implemented the policy of the Labour Party by not carrying out any death penalties that have been imposed by courts.

I also believe that the fact of the death penalty being a deterrent is open to dispute. I believe it is unnecessary in this context. I have quoted the fact previously - and I think honorable members can surely take some courage from it - .that in both world wars our Australian troops were able to face up to their enemies without having this penalty hanging over their heads. Although there was provision for it in the law, it was never implemented. During the First World War the Government was quite forthright about the matter and demanded that the penalty toe not carried out even when the sentence had been pronounced. During that war, Lord Birdwood and Field-Marshal Haig continually used all the pressure at their command to get the Australian Government to implement the death penalty because they said, “ You cannot keep soldiers loyal and true unless you shoot some now and again.” Of course, the record of the First Australian Imperial Force in particular was ample evidence that that was not the case.

So, in support of the case presented by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition I say that it is time members of this Parliament, no matter which party they happen to represent, accepted the new and more humane principles of administration of justice which operate in every other civilized country in the world. We should not tolerate this lowest act of barbarism being on the statute-book in any form. If people have to be hanged to keep them loyal, there is something wrong with the whole community. There is no justification for it. Australia has never had a traitor. The death penalty is not a deterrent, lt is an insult to every member of the community who, unfortunately, is associated with the carrying out of this dreadful act.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.I support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) and the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) in their opposition to the imposition of the death penalty. As a member of a State Labour government from 1929 to 1932, I had the unfortunate experience of having to sit on the Executive Council and consider the cases of no less than eight murderers. The practice then was that every Cabinet Minister who had to make a decision was, prior to the meeting of the Executive Council, furnished with the record of the life of the condemned person. I can say that there was not one life history or case history, which I or my colleagues read, which showed that the condemned person had had an opportunity to live the normal life of the more fortunate members of the community. Always, not unconnected with his crime, were the surrounding circumstances of his childhood and his environment.

The death penalty is nothing more or less than barbarism on the part of a civilized community which itself commits the murder of some one whom that civilized community is, to an extent, responsible for producing. It is true that in Victoria, since the defeat of the last Labour Government, the present Tory Government has reintroduced the death penalty and again pulled the hangman’s noose around people’s necks. It is no longer a deterrent. One of the most objectionable features of this awful act is that the hangman has to remain anonymous. It is so horrible and repugnant that his name is never made known. If I had my way, I would make the Governor-General or the Governor of the State pull the hangman’s noose. If it is good enough for any ordinary person to do it, it is good enough for the head of the State to do it.

I reinforce the statement of the honorable member for Wills that the Labour Government in the initial stages of the First

World War, and the anti-Labour Government that followed, forthrightly refused repeated requests by the Imperial Authorities for power to inflict the death penalty on members of the First A.I.F. The death penalty could be inflicted on members of the British Army, and it was inflicted on deserters. I have seen desertions take place through no fault of the deserters. In World War I. the British Army inflicted the horrible penalty of No. 1 field punishment, under which men were tied to the wheels of gun carriages and flogged. The Australian Army refused to allow the death penalty to be inflicted on its members. Yet its overall conduct was as good as, if not better than, that of any other army in either of the two world wars in which it participated. It is wrong for this Parliament at this time in what should be a more enlightened era to disregard the position in other civilized countries and lead the people to believe that it is necessary to have the death penalty in order to make men loyal. If men intend to be disloyal, treacherous or traitorous, no death penalty and no other form of punishment will prevent them from indulging in their horrible acts.

I do not appeal to the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick). It would be futile to do so. because he has misjudged his fellow-men in this chamber so frequently. Recently when the very strongly antiCommunist honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Jones) raised a matter of urgent public importance and put a strong case in regard to restrictive trade practices, I saw the Attorney-General rise in his place rather nettled and heard him reply. He said, “ I have just come back from the United Nations where I listened to this sort of thing for a fortnight. I listened to this sort of thing from Khrushchev”. By implication and innuendo, he was branding the honorable member for Newcastle as a Communist. I do not appeal to the AttorneyGeneral: I appeal to this Parliament, a body of men who surely have sufficient faith in the decency of their fellow Australian citizens to be no longer parties to believing that it is necessary to inflict the death penalty in order to prevent men from committing treason, sedition and so on. The imposition of the death penalty will not stop them, if they are so inclined. Either they are products of a ‘bad society or there is some congenital, physiological or psycho logical weakness in their makeup. I condemn the death penalty and ask the Parliament to pass judgment along decent Christian and enlightened lines in this respect.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– I also support the opposition to the death penalty. I hope that the Government is fully satisfied with the precision of its proposals in all respects, if it intends to impose the death penalty. We should remember that the death sentence was passed on Mr. De Valera and he subsequently became a British Commonwealth Prime Minister. For political crimes related to sedition and treason, Mr. Nehru and Gandhi were also imprisoned. I think it was Lord Attlee who said that passing sentence on people for sedition seemed to be one of the ways of ensuring that they became British Commonwealth Prime Ministers. It should also be remembered that only tv/o or three years ago very strong dissent was expressed by honorable members on the Government side of the chamber against sympathy expressed by honorable members on this side in relation to independence for Cyprus. Now that is a fact, and we now negotiate with the people, as heads of state, who, it was strongly suggested, should have all sorts of unpleasant things done to them, and one of whom was actually exiled.

So be very certain that what is being classified as treason is some real conspiracy against the state and not a matter of a political attitude in relation to independence, say, in the Territories, or some such matter. I name De Valera, Nehru and Archbishop Makarios to show how people classified as seditious end up as Prime Ministers in the respectable circle of the British Commonwealth of Nations and are dealt with by the heads of state who imprisoned them. Had the death sentence been carried out on De Valera what advantage would it have been to the United Kingdom? He did really express the wishes of the Irish people. They did not want to be a part of the British Commonwealth, and we now admit it, although it was never admitted at the time. So be very certain that any offence that carries the death penalty is not subject to the passions of the moment.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member for

Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) has hit a very important note. Not only has he supported the remarks of previous speakers in condemning as a general principle the imposition of the death penalty upon any human being, but he has stressed the most important point that the crime for which it is now proposed to impose the death penalty is expressed in most imprecise terms. Let me remind honorable members that the crime for which the death penalty is now proposed arises if a person forms an intention to do any act referred to in the paragraphs of proposed new section 24 (1.), and this includes an act preparatory to levying war.

We have already had a debate on the meaning of acts preparatory to levying war. But, leaving aside the minor offence of committing an act preparatory to the levying of war, even the act of levying war has been proved conclusively to be an act which could include a general strike. Does the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) suggest that every trade union secretary who incites members of his union to participate in a general strike is guilty of this offence? Suppose that we had a general strike which completely paralysed every branch of industry so that there was no electricity, the sewerage system was out of action, the hospitals were closed down, supplies of oxygen were cut off and even single thing that contributes to modern life was stopped. The Government could say that those responsible for completely paralysing the country were levying war against it in order to force the Government to remove this savage, obnoxious piece of legislation from the statute-book. The Government could claim that any person who incited the multitude to force upon the Parliament a change of law was levying war and, therefore, was guilty of the offence “f treason, and the death penalty could be imposed. It is as good as that. Any union secretary found guilty of participating in a general stoppage of this kind could be executed.

This offence does not appear in the statutes of any country in the Englishspeaking word than Canada. It is noteworthy that the Attorney-General, search as he might, was able to find only one country in the English-speaking world where the doing of an act preparatory to war is treated as a treasonable offence, and that country is Canada.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He grabbed it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Rather than justify a more liberal law leaving out this offence by pointing to all the countries that do not include this as a treasonable offence, he grabbed the only instance he could find to justify his inclusion of the offence. So Australia and Canada are the only countries in the world that have the rather doubtful distinction of making the doing of an act of this kind an offence punishable by death - and the definition of such an act is as wide as the world itself. The writing of an article or the making of a speech could be said to be an act preparatory to the levying of war, and could be punished by death.

Now I turn to the moral aspect. It is a long time since I went to Sunday School, but I can still clearly remember that one thing taught to me was, “Thou shalt not kill “. That is one of the Commandments, and the duty to obey it rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of every person who believes in the Christian faith. I was taught that in no circumstances may any man take the life of another, and nowhere in the Bible can any justification or sanction be found for what we are now proposing to do in this bill.

Mr Ward:

– Have you made the mistake of thinking that this Government is comprised of Christians?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was under the impression that the Government consisted of people who believed in the Christian faith, and I believe that that is so.

Mr Ward:

– They profess to do so.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think they do more than profess; I think they really believe in the Christian faith, but they apparently do not understand that there is a prohibition against this sort of thing. The Minister for Immigration shakes his head.

Mr Downer:

– Your theology is not right.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like the honorable gentleman to tell me what the Commandment “ Thou shalt not kill “ means if it does not mean “ thou shalt not take the life of another in any circumstances “.

I leave it at that, except to say that if honorable members opposite believe that the writing of an article or the making of a speech which can be described as an act preparatory to a general stoppage throughout Australia justifies the death penalty, then the value they place on human life is much less than the value I place on it.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– I suppose we could go on all to-night and all tomorrow expressing our views on this.

Motion (by Mr. Ward) put -

That the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) be not further heard.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

That the question be now put.

Question put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. B. M. Wight.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 33

Majority . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. B. M. Wight.)

AYES: 51

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. WHITLAM (Werriwa) [1.16 a.m.) - by leave - I move -

In proposed section 24, sub-section (2.), omit paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: - “ (b) knowing that a person intends to commit treason, does not with all reasonable despatch use reasonable endeavours to prevent the commission of the offence.”.

Sub-section (2.) makes statutory the traditional offence of misprision of treason. This crime, which attracts the penalty of imprisonment for life, is committed by - (2.) A person who -

The traditional law on this subject places on a person who knows that another person intends to commit treason an obligation to give information thereof, with all reasonable despatch, to a justice of the peace. The Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) has paraphrased the provision that information shall be given to a justice of the peace and has provided that information shall be given to a constable. Earlier in the committee stage there was some argument about the responsibilities and proficiency of justices of the peace. I believe that there are about 150,000 justices of the peace in Australia. Apparently the Attorney-General feels that they are a little too common for this purpose and that the information should be given to a constable.

The Opposition’s objection to this provision is that it imposes in certain circumstances an obligation to give information in respect of one of the crimes specified. The Opposition does not dispute that treason is so serious that no person should harbour a traitor or should fail to stamp out the treason as quickly as possible and with his best endeavours; but we find it is odious that a person should be compelled to give information concerning an offence. It may be that to give information to a constable is the only reasonable thing to do or the most reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. If that is the case, then it would be necessary to give information under the amendment that I have moved. However, we feel that this modern statute should clearly state that any person who knows that another person intends to commit treason should with all reasonable despatch use reasonable endeavours to prevent the commission of the offence. In some cases it may not be the most reasonable thing to do to give information. There may be steps that one could take which would be more effective than seeking a constable to whom to give information. Our amendment will ensure that a person will take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence. If the only reasonable or the most reasonable method is to inform a constable, then that is the obligation which is imposed on residents and citizens of this country. But the present paragraph is deficient, in that it makes the giving of information in itself sufficient, although there may be better means. It is also odious, in that it requires the giving of that information although there may be other and better means available To take a crucial example, there is the encouragement of informing by members of a family against other members of it, although there are, within a family, very often better means of dissuading traitorous activities than the giving of information.

The proposal we make is that if a person thinks someone is about to commit this crime he must, with all reasonable despatch, use all reasonable endeavours to prevent the commission of the offence. Under the clause as it stands it is sufficient that he tells the constable. Admittedly he has an alternative, but we impose the obligation which we think is in accordance with modern concepts - that you should do all you can as quickly as you can to prevent the offence.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.A lot depends upon the interpretation of the word “ treason “. I believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has on this matter a viewpoint entirely different from that of the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick). It is true that we have already dealt with a number of matters which are now regarded as being treasonable acts, but I listened with great interest to the Attorney-General’s explanation of one of the offences which, in his opinion is a treasonable act. He says “ levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth “. The ordinary citizen of Australia would assume that that meant an actual act of war, assisting the enemy or assisting an armed insurrection. But as honorable members of the Opposition have pointed out, this could easily include a general strike action.

It is true that the Attorney-General said that as long as the strike action is taken in good faith and for an industrial purpose it is not an act of treason. But who determines when a strike action is taken in good faith? There would not be one member of the Liberal Party or Country Party in this Parliament who would regard any strike action for any purpose as being justified. So when is it deemed that a strike is in good faith? Government supporters always regard strikes as being engineered by members of the Communist Party and consider them as treasonable acts against the Government of this country. When you talk about committing treason you must have regard to what the Government considers to be treason, and In my opinion it involves industrial action.

Earlier in the debate the AttorneyGeneral said that levying war could constitute an action designed to overawe the Parliament. That might include people attending Parliament to demonstrate against some unpopular piece of legislation. While this measure has been under consideration we have had literally thousands of trade unionists flocking to Canberra to demonstrate against these obnoxious amendments which are proposed to be written into this legislation. The honorable member for Ryan (Mr. Drury) objected to their action in peacefully canvassing members. The honorable member protested to Mr. Speaker and wanted action taken against citizens who came here merely to state their views to their parliamentary representatives. He wanted action taken by the Government, because evidently he was afraid that the people who came here might have intended to overthrow the Government of the country. One can see what a ridiculous position we could get into. I think the trade unions have every reason to be suspicious and mindful of what is happening, because when you write these words into the legislation whilst they may appear on the surface to the average person to be innocuous, they do not always mean what they might appear to mean.

I repeat that I believe that the AttorneyGeneral interprets the meaning of levying war against the Commonwealth differently from the Opposition. I dare say there would be nobody who could mistake the fact that if you assisted an enemy at war with this country - a foreign power between whose forces and those of this country a conflict was taking place - that would be treason. You can understand anybody who instigated armed invasion of this country by a foreign power being charged with treason, and you can understand what is meant by “ armed insurrection “, but “ levying war “ evidently means much more than the words would seem to imply. It evidently means, if we accept the meaning attributed to the phrase by the Attorney-General, taking action by means of demonstrations, and if the Government believed that demonstrations or general strikes threatened the constituted Government of this counutry, in its eyes that would be a treasonable act. What does the amendment proposed by the AttorneyGeneral, and now under consideration, actually mean? It means that the person possessing information of an intended treasonable act must inform, and it makes noexception as to the person to be informed upon. That appears to me to be identical to the system which operated in the totalitarian countries unless some exception is given in respect of members of a family. Otherwise it means that if children do not inform on their parents, when the parents belong to some political organization which the Government regards as a revolutionary organization or a political body advocating revolution, they commit an offence. And, conversely, if the parent does not inform on the child, he or she is liable to be deemed to have committed an offence under this act and is then exposed to the penalty of imprisonment for life.

I believe, as does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that if somebody knew that somebody else was going to commit a treasonable act - in the sense that we interpret it and not as the Government interprets it - and wanted to help an enemy of this country, they would have a duty to make every endeavour to prevent such an act from being successful. Surely no more than that should be expected of a parent against his own child, or of a child against his parent. I would say that in its present form a lot depends upon the interpretation of what constitutes treason.

I believe all the Government’s proposals in this legislation to be of a most dangerous character. I never believed it was the sole purpose of the Attorney-General, as he says, merely to tidy up this legislation. He has done much more than that. What I am afraid of, and what I hope to warn as many Australians as possible about, is that the Government wants these powers, which it knows are very drastic powers, for use as a deterrent against militant trade unionism in this country. It is not worried about the international situation, but about the internal situation. As the economic difficulties of the Government become greater day by day, as undoubtedly they will, it is afraid that it will be faced with an actual uprising in this country by people who will be obliged to rise against the Government and destroy it before it destroys them. That is the reason why it wants these powers. I warn the Government that putting an act on a statute book does not necessariy make it an effective law, because a law cannot become effective unless it has acceptance by a majority of the people. I believe that the moment the Government attempts to use these powers against either a poltical Labour or industrial Labour leader to prevent him criticising the Government’s domestic or foreign policy, it will have more trouble on its hands than it can possibly cope with.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.As I understood the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), the Opposition dislikes the expression “ to lay information “ which is contained in the Government’s proposed amendment. The attitude of the Opposition is extraordinary. We know that if a member of the Federal Parliamentary Labour Party commits an offence against Labour Party rules he is reported to the federal executive which takes appropriate action. If one of their colleagues commits an offence, Labour Party members are prepared to lay information against him to preserve their party, but if an offence is committed against their country they are not prepared to lay information against the offender. Does the Opposition place its party above the country? That seems to be the conclusion to be drawn from what Opposition members have said. It is true that members of the Labour Party have been reported to the executive.

Mr Uren:

– Rumours!

Mr ANDERSON:

– They are not rumours. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) was reported only recently. Members of the Opposition will lay information against a member of their own party but they will not lay information against an enemy of their country.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not intend to make a speech. I merely wish to ask a simple question of the Attorney-General. I want to know whether any trade unionist, who had information at his disposal that other trade unionists intended to take action to bring about a general stoppage that would cause a complete paralysis oi industry and, therefore, no wheel would turn, would be obliged to report his knowledge to the police. I am assuming that the proposed general strike was not being called on in an effort to obtain increased wages but that it was a political strike designed to bring about the downfall of the Government as a consequence of it imposing upon the community a vicious, savage law like the Crimes Bill.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– Let me answer the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron). The honorable member for East Sydney claimed that I had said that any attempt to overawe the Parliament fulfilled the definition of levying war. I did no such thing. I said that any attempt to overawe the Parliament by force and violence amounted to levying war.

In reply in similar terms to the question which was raised by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. He does not suppose that force and violence will be used to carry out the intent to which he has referred. If force and violence were used, of course the action would come within the definition because that is the whole point of levying war.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Suppose that the police took action which resulted in violence.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– But it is violence on the part of the people who have the initiative, not violence resulting from fighting with the police. The definition applies to people who set out to overawe the Parliament by force and violence for the purpose of taking government of the country out of the hands of the Government. That is what the proposed new section is aimed at preventing. I should not have thought that honorable members opposite would favour seeing government of the country taken out of the hands of the Government by force and violence.

Mr Whitlam:

– Is that not what proposed new section 24aa states?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:

– No. That deals only with particular forms of force and violence. Let me analyse now what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said.

He has stated that if there are no other reasonable means of endeavouring to prevent the commission of the offence, it is all right to give information to a constable. The Opposition has no objection to that. But when he makes that statement he gives away his whole case because in the proposed new section the party concerned has a choice. If there are more means than one, he can give information. If he does not like doing that - some people do not although others, I am sure, would not mind in a matter of this kind - he can use the other means. The position is very clear. I repeat: If there are more than one means he does not have to give information; he can use the other means. If there is only one means, he has to give information. And the Opposition does not mind that. So if you follow the matter to its logical conclusion, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked himself out of the point the minute he conceded that if there are no other means it is all right to give information. I move -

That the question be now put

Question put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. B. M. Wight.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 33

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the paragraph proposed to be omitted (Mr. Whitlam’s amendment) stand part of the clause to the end of proposed section 24.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. B. M. Wight.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question put -

That clause 23 to the end of proposed section 24, as amended, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. B. M. Wight.)

AYES: 52

NOES: 33

Majority . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 1.55 a.m. (Friday).

page 3067

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Fisheries

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. On what dates has he proclaimed an area of waters from which fish of a specified species or size may not be taken?
  2. To what States and Territories is each area adjacent?
  3. Which of these States and Territories has proclaimed an adjacent area within territorial limits from which these fish may not be taken?
  4. On what dates has each State and Territory proclaimed each such area?
Mr Adermann:
CP

– The answers to the questions asked by the honorable member are - 1 and 2. The following table shows in column 1 the dates on which I have proclaimed closed seasons in respect of the species of fish in column 2 for the periods set out in column 3, and within the areas described in column 4: -

3 and 4. Except as stated below the Commonwealth regulations relating to the action referred to in the answers of Parts 1 and 2 of the question are complementary to existing State statutory requirements and in all cases have been brought into force at the request of the States concerned. The date on which each State proclaimed its notices is not readily available but I am arranging for it to be obtained from the States concerned and I will convey it to the honorable member as soon as it is to hand. The exception referred to above is in respect of Gummy Shark (Mustelus antarcticus) - There is no closed season for this species in the territorial waters of New South Wales. However, I am advised that the New South Wales Government plans to introduce the same closed season as now applies elsewhere for this species.

Pensions

Mr Daly:

y asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

What is the maximum amount of income permissible for a pensioner to receive, in addition to the pension, before being declared ineligible to receive the supplementary assistance of 10s. per week?

Mr Roberton:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

A single pensioner who is in receipt of the maximum general rate pension, who pays rent, and who is entirely dependent on his pension may qualify for supplementary assistance. Each applicant is required to comply with these conditions but, in practice, 10s. a week does not exclude an otherwise qualified applicant.

Hospital Benefits Organizations

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Which are the ten largest hospital benefits organizations?
  2. What percentage of contributors to registered hospital benefits organizations contributes to each of these ten?
  3. What are the (a) reserves and (b) operating, expenses of each of these ten organizations?
Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2.

The Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales - 29 per cent, of contributors.

The Hospital Benefits Association of Victoria’ - 16 per cent of contributors.

The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited - 11 per cent, of contributors.

The Mutual Hospital Association Limited - 6 per cent, of contributors.

The Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia - 6 per cent, of contributors.

National Health Services Association of South’ Australia - 3 per cent, of contributors.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in New South Wales - 2 per cent, of contributors.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in Victoria - 2 per cent, of contributors.

Australian Natives Association, Vctoria - 1 per cent, of contributors.

Friendly Societies Health Services, Western Australia - 1 per cent, of contributors.

  1. This information is regarded as confidential in respect of individual organizations. However, the aggregate figures for the above organizations are -

    1. £8,220,567 as at 30th June, 1960, to cover the contingent liability for benefits to 7,208,000 contributors and dependants;
    2. £1,373,456 for financial year 1959-60.

Medical Benefits Organizations

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Which are the ten largest medical benefits organizations?
  2. What percentage of contributors to registered medical benefits organizations contributes to each of these ten?
  3. What are the (a) reserves and (b) operating expenses of each of these ten organizations?
Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2.

The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited - 48 per cent, of contributors.

The Hospital Benefits Association of Victoria - 14 per cent, of contributors.

The Mutual Hospital Association Limited - 5 per cent, of contributors.

The Hospital Benefits Fund of. Western Australia - 5 per cent, of contributors.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in New South Wales - 3 per cent, of contributors.

National Health Services Association of South Australia - 3 per cent, of contributors.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in Victoria - 2 per cent, of contributors.

Australian Natives Association, Victoria - 1 per cent, of contributors.

The Grand United Order of Oddfellows New South Wales - 1 per cent, of contributors.

Friendly Societies Health Services, Western Australia - 1 per cent, of contributors.

This information is regarded as confidential in respect of individual organizations. However, the aggregate figures for the above organizations are: -

  1. £4,251,804 as at 30th June, 1960, to cover the contingent liability for benefits to 7,311,000 contributors and dependants;
  2. £1,936,956 for financial year 1959-60.

Ministerial Visits Overseas.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s.- On 10th November, the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) asked a question without notice about ministerial visits overseas, remarking on the fact that 1959-60 expenditure recorded in the Estimates was identical with the appropriation or within £1 of it. I now provide the following additional information for the honorable member: -

The circumstance mentioned by the honorable member is not one that is peculiar to visits overseas. It arises constantly when expenditure of any nature is initially charged against Treasurer’s Advance and the exact expenditure is ratified post hoc either in the Additional Estimates or in the Treasurer’s statement tabled at the end of each financial year. At the time the Estimates are prepared, the estimated cost of any known future overseas visit by a Minister is included. However, in some cases there is no indication at that time that a Minister will be proceeding overseas. The reason for the £1 differences that quite often occur is a simple one. The parliamentary appropriations are intended to cover the full expenditure by rounding upwards to the next £1 higher. On the other hand it is usual practice for actual expenditure figures to be rounded to the nearer £1. Both of these accounting techniques are part of the established procedures for presentation of the Estimates.

Defence Forces

Mr Bryant:

t asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What are the daily rates of pay and allowances for members of the citizen forces with the rank of (a) captain (Army), (b) lieutenant (Navy) and (c) flight lieutenant (Air Force), with (i) three years and (ii) six years seniority?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The rates of pay at present being paid for the ranks of the Citizen Forces referred to in the question are: -

Captain (Army) - 66s. lOd. per day.

Lieutenant (Navy)- 59s. lid. per day.

Flight Lieutenant (Air Force) - 66s. lOd. per day.

The new rates recently announced by the Minister for Defence and to be prescribed are -

Captain (Army)- 76s. 6d. per day.

Lieutenant (Navy)- 68s. Id. per day.

Flight Lieutenant (Air Force- 76s. 6d. per day.

There is no incremental advancement with years of service in rank.

Allowances. - Marriage allowance of 8s. per day is payable to married members who attend a camp, school or course of instruction for not less than four days. Separation allowance of 4s. per day (to be increased to 7s. per day) is also payable if the duration of the camp, school or course is of ten or more days. Citizen Naval and Air Force members are reimbursed for fares paid to and from home training parades and receive a meal allowance if unable to return home from work for an evening meal before attending a parade. The Citizen Military Forces receive an allowance of ls. 6d. per day additional to their daily rate of pay as compensation for these expenses and, in addition, may claim amounts in excess of 3s. for return fares from home to the place of training. Subject to regular attendance at parades, conduct and demonstration of efficiency, a Citizen Force member is eligible for an efficiency allowance of £10 per annum. These are the usual emoluments payable to a member of the Citizen Forces in the ranks stated, but other allowances are payable where appropriate in relation to the member’s duty and under conditions similar to those applicable to the Permanent Forces. These are flying pay 19s. per day for a flight lieutenant and 10s. 6d. for an Army captain, parachute pay 5s. per day while training, 7s. 6d. per day on qualifying for each day a descent is made, hard lying money 2s. 6d. per day, retention of lodgings allowance up to 9s. 3d. per day, living out away from home allowance 17s. per day, and living out allowance 9s. 6d. per day. The proposed date of effect of allowances at these rates is 1st July, 1960.

Security Service

Mr Cairns:

s asked the Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. Was it stated by the Acting AttorneyGeneral during the absence of the AttorneyGeneral that the security service was operating as laid down under the Chifley Government?
  2. Is it a fact that - (a) the Chifley Government placed the security service under the control of a Supreme Court judge; (b) the present Government almost immediately replaced the judge with a serving military officer who was promoted to the rank of brigadier whilst in charge of the security service and after four years service as an Army officer; (c) this officer remained on the active list from his appointment to the security service on the 17th July, 1950, to the 15th June, 1954, after which he was placed on the reserve of officers; and (d) no question of inquiry into security reports or appeal for those affected by them arose under the Chifley Government?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows: -

  1. No. 2. (a) It is a fact that the South Australian Government made available to the Chifley Government for one year (later extended at the request of the present Government) the services of a judge of the Supreme Court of the State to act as Director-General of Security at the inauguration of the re-organized security service. But the honorable member should know that none of the occupants of the office of Director or DirectorGeneral of Security during the preceding eight years of Labour Government were judges, (b) No. The honorable member should have read more carefully the letter from Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick in the “ Age “ of 13th October last on which he has apparently relied, (c) Yes. When he was appointed for an initial term as Director-General of Security, Colonel Spry was merely seconded from the Army in which he was a career officer (he graduated from Duntroon in 1931). It is normal practice that promotion of officers continues while they are seconded, otherwise they might face supersession through no fault of their own. The Director-General was thus promoted brigadier while still seconded to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, (d) There are possibly a number of persons, including senior officers of the Commonwealth, who have first-hand knowledge of the matters attendant on the establishment by Mr. Chifley of the Australian Intelligence Organization, and of the matters discussed and decisions taken by Mr. Chifley. I do not feel called upon, for the purposes of answering the honorable member’s question, to endeavour to ascertain what matters of policy were considered by its predecessors in office.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 November 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1960/19601117_reps_23_hor29/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant