Senate
31 May 1950

19th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3.15 - p.m., and read prayers.

page 3410

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Oan the Minister for Repatriation say whether it is true that Dr. P. R. James has been dismissed summarily from the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, and therefore is ineligible for pro rata payments in lieu of recreation leave, and has no right of appeal? If so, is that action an indication that the present fascist Government is introducing fascist methods of administration ?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– I rise to order. The term “ fascist government “ is offensive to me and I ask that it bc withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator SANDFORD:

– I withdraw it. The expression may have been a little premature, but not very much.

Senator GORTON:

– Again. I rise to order. I should like to know, Mr. President, whether I am in order in asking that Senator Sandford withdraw, without qualification, the remark to which I took objection.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! “Senator Gorton has objected to the term “ fascist government “. I ask Senator Sandford to withdraw the term.

Senator SANDFORD:

– In deference to you, Mr. President, I withdraw. I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether it is the intention of the present conservative tory Government to introduce fascist-like methods in anticipation of placing fascist-like legislation on the statute-book of this country ?

Senator Spooner:

– I rise to order. I strongly object to Senator Sandford’s remarks, and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Senator SANDFORD:

– With apologies to the fascists, I withdraw them.

Senator Spooner:

– I object to the manner in which Senator Sandford has made his withdrawal. It is more objectionable than his original statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is most undesirable that honorable senators should get themselves into a state . of mind in which they cannot respect one another. The proceedings of this chamber should be conducted in a manner that is a credit to all of us as the holders of high positions in this land. Frequently accusations of all kinds are made from both sides of the chamber. For instance, honorable senators on my right describe honorable senators on my left as Communists. Conversely, honorable senators on my right are described .as fascist. There may be reasons for such accusations that appear good enough to the honorable senators who make them, but it would be better for the conduct of the business of this chamber if they were not made. However, it should be appreciated that, on occasions, certain actions .may be described, perhaps with some degree of justification, as Communist or fascist. I have no doubt that, if I were so inclined., I could advance arguments showing that such expressions were in order, but as they cause perturbation in the minds of some honorable senators, it would be as well if, in the interests of decorum in this chamber, they were not used. There would then be no cause for honorable senators to rise so frequently to points of order.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– The honorable senator appears to be more concerned with political propaganda than with obtaining information.

Senator Sandford:

– I rise to order. I regard that statement by the honorable senator as a reflection on me. I consider that this is a very important question. Information has reached me that Dr. James has been summarily dismissed without any right of appeal and without any reason being given to him. He has approached the Public Service Board, and the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in Victoria has refused to comment. I resent the honorable senator’s statement that my question is propaganda.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is only a few. days since I called attention to the fact that it is unfair and not parliamentary to question the bona fides of an honorable senator. I take it that when any honorable senator on either side rises to ask a question, he is seeking information and I think that it ill behoves honorable senators to imply that information is not being sought. The question was in order and I ask Senator Cooper to answer it if he can to the best of his ability.

Senator COOPER:

– In asking his question, Senator Sandford was somewhat concerned, perhaps, with political propaganda as well ‘as asking a question.

Senator Sandford:

– I rise to order again, Mr. President. I ask that that statement that I am asking a question as political propaganda be withdrawn and that it shall not be repeated.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the Minister would be well advised to try to answer the question. It would save a lot of trouble.

Senator COOPER:

– I was endeavouring to answer.

Senator Sandford:

– I ask for the withdrawal of that statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the Minister withdraw it?

Senator COOPER:

– I withdraw it in deference to you, Mr. President, but I must say that I took it that the honorable senator asked me two questions. The first was whether I had any information in regard to a Dr. James of the Repatriation Department and bis dismissal. The other question” as I understood it was whether this is the result of the fascist government? I was endeavouring to answer both questions, one at a time. I merely said in my answers that perhaps the honorable senator was more concerned with political propaganda. He would not give me an opportunity to finish my answer. I have heard unofficially that Dr. James has been dismissed. I have not been officially advised, but I can assure the honorable senator that inquiries will be made and I shall let him have a reply to the first part of his Laussen, as early as possible.

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

– Can the Ministor for Repatriation say whether it is a fact that Dr. P. R, James, R.M.O., R.G.H., now resident medical officer of the Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, has been employed as a medical officer at that institution for a considerable period? Is it a fact that he has six and a half years’ war service to his credit? Is it not a fact that he has a splendid record and is considered to be a brilliant medical officer; that he has served the hospital capably and well, and was informed by the medical superintendent that his superior officer had not questioned his efficiency or competency? Is it a fact when Doctor James’s annual leave became due, the authorities requested him, owing to the pressure of work, to defer taking his holidays? Is it a fact that Mr. H. C. Laussen. Deputy Commissioner, wrote to Dr. James as follows : -

I have to inform you that advice has been received from the Permanent Head to the effect that the Public Service Board has decided that the temporary appointment of Dr. P. B. James, R.M.O., B..G.H., Heidelberg, be terminated. Accordingly, Dr. James is to be notified by you (in writing) that his services will not be required after Wednesday, 7th June, 1050.

Dr. James will not be eligible for pro rata payment in lieu of recreation leave.

Since Doctor James’s services have been terminated without his being given any reason, will the Minister have a board set up to inquire into the reasons why this brilliant medical officer was dismissed; also, why the Deputy Commissioner refuses pro rata payment in lieu of recreation leave due, particularly since Dr. James, at the request of the department, deferred taking his holidays when they fell due? Will Doctor James be allowed to be present during the whole of the inquiry?

Senator COOPER:

– I assure the honorable senator that I shall cause inquiries to be made into the matter that he has raised.

page 3411

QUESTION

DOLLAR DEFICITS

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the Government. This morning the public was treated to a view of certain tractors that have been imported from the United States of America and the press has stated that these tractors have been imported without any dollar commitments. Will the Leader of the Government inform the Senate in what way this arrangement has been made, whether there are any other arrangements along the same lines and whether this will lead to an easing of the dollar position with the United States of America?

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

– The arrangement to which the honorable senator has referred was the outcome of negotiations between the Minister for National Development and the management of the International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited. Fortunately no dollars are involved. Owing to the confidence that American interests have in Australia, they are prepared to make a capital investment here by way of sending this capital equipment and taking in payment Australian currency which would be accepted as additional capital for the International Harvester Company el Australia Proprietary Limited. It is honed that the dollar situation will be considerably eased by many similar capital investments of American dollars in Australia. We have every reason to believe that the prestige of Australia stands very high throughout the world at the present time. Australia is regarded as a safe and sound place for the investment of American capital. I hope that much more American capital will be invested here so as to relieve our acute dollar shortage.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– As a great increase of American investments in Australia must have the effect of accentuating the present inflationary trend, that has already reached alarming proportions, will the Minister say whether the concession made to the International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited was a special one, or whether other American organizations which export oil or chemicals, and American financial organizations generally, will be similarly treated?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Taking the last part of the question first, the answer is that no special concession whatever was made to the International Harvester Company of Australia Proprietary Limited. Manufactured goods from hard currency areas are permitted to be imported only under special import licence. Such a licence was issued to the company mentioned because the attractive feature of their proposition was that it involved no expenditure of dollars. If any other American or overseas corporation approaches the Government with a similar proposal I am sure that it will receive a cordial reception. Concerning the honorable senator’s reference to the inflationary trend, I suggest to him that he should study economics more closely, when he will discover that inflationary trends manifest themselves when there is plenty of spending money but a shortage of goods for sale. I emphasize that in supplying tractors for Australia the Americans are making available not money but goods.

page 3412

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether there has been a reduction of the quantity of tobacco leaf imported into Australia during the last three months? What is the basis of the allocation of manufactured tobacco among the States? Does the Minister know that it is impossible for new businesses and ex-servicemen’s clubs to obtain quotas of tobacco under, the present system of distribution by committees in each State, the excuse being that the Government has reduced imports ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am not aware of any reduction of tobacco imports during the. last three months. Some time in 1948, the Chifley Government, in the circumstances then prevailing, gave an undertaking to Sir Stafford Cripps, who was administering the sterling dol.lor pool, that Australia would cut dollar expenditure by 25 per cent. The present Australian Government has faithfully honoured that undertaking to the best of its ability. Tobacco purchases from the dollar areas have been cut under that arrangement by 25 per cent., as have the purchases of other dollar commodities, but no further cut had been made within the last three months, so far as I know. If the honorable senator will place the question on the notice-paper I shall supply him with more detailed information. As for the honorable senator’s complaint that new businesses, clubs, canteens, &c, are unable to obtain quotas of tobacco and cigarettes, I remind him that distribution has for some time past been in the hands of the trade. I understand that there are many anomalies connected with distribution, but the Commonwealth has no power to interfere. Whether the States have such power I do not know.

page 3412

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Paratroop Equipment

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Air say whether it is a fact that all paratroop equipment held in Australia for instructional purposes and as an active service reserve is obsolete? Was some of the equipment used in this country recently? In view of the fact that Light Aircraft Proprietary Limited, a company which pioneered this work in Australia, ha!s notified the Army authorities that it has the necessary drawing and samples to bring Australian equipment up to date, will the Minister inform the Senate whether anything has been done to remedy the present position? Will he take steps to ensure that this company, which did splendid work during World War II., is given sufficient work to keep its skeleton staff occupied, as an insurance against our being again caught unprepared if another war occurs?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I did not hear the earlier part of the question, but I understand that it contains a reflection upon the Minister for Air in the Chifley Government. In order that the facts may be ascertained, I ask the honorable senator to put the question upon the notice-paper.

Senator Large:

– I assure the Minister that I did not intend to cast a reflection upon any Minister.

Senator Sheehan:

– I rise to order. Is it in order for a Minister to inform the Senate that he did not hear part of a question asked by an honorable senator and then to reflect upon an ex-Minister? Is that parliamentary?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is in order for a Minister to say that he has not heard the first part of the question.

Senator Sheehan:

– Is it in order for a Minister to admit that he did not hear a question, and then to reflect upon an exMinister ?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no standing order covering the case of a Minister who, for some reason, has not heard a question addressed to him. Ministers should listen to questions that are directed to them, but sometimes their attention is diverted. While I have been in this chair, people have spoken to me and, consequently, I have not heard everything that has gone on in the chamber. It is certainly not in order, and not parliamentary, for a Minister to reflect upon another Minister or an ex-Minister.

Senator Large:

– I thought at the time that it would have been better for the Minister to ask me to repeat either the first part or the whole of my question.

The PRESIDENT:

– If a Minister has not heard a question, it is not improper for him to ask that it be repeated. That has been done often in this chamber. If, in future, a Minister does not hear a question addressed to him, he should request that it be repeated.

page 3413

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago I directed to the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport a question relating to petrol sales. That is a matter of considerable public importance. Is the Minister now able to furnish a reply to the question ?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– As Senator Maher and other honorable senators have asked a number of questions about comparative sales of petrol, I have obtained official figures from my department. The quantity of petro-l sold in Australia between December, 1948, and April, 1949, was 173,000,000 gallons, compared with 198,000,000 gallons sold between December, 1949, and April, 1950, an increase of 14 per cent. The sales in the respective months included in those periods were -

Seaboard stocks of petrol increased from 63,000,000 gallons at the 30th November, 3949, to 75,000,000 gallons at the 30th April, 1950- an increase of 12,000,000 gallons.

The number of motor vehicles registered in Australia at the 31st January, 1950, was 1,316,130, compared with 1,176,295 at the 31st January, 1949, an increase for the year of 139,835, or 12 per centi

page 3414

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Powers or Presiding Officers - Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I preface a question to you, Mr. President, by pointing out that persons who to-day were privileged to listen to questions and answers in another place, both at first hand and by means of the broadcast of the proceedings, were treated to one of the greatest exhibitions of fascism that has taken place in this country. Does any standing order empower the President to compel the attendance in his private chambers of an honorable senator to explain a misdemeanour that it is considered has been committed in this chamber?

The PRESIDENT:

-Although I do not know of any standing order which empowers the President to take such action, the powers of Speakers in other parts of the world are very wide. I recollect an occasion when I was requested to deliver an address over the national broadcasting network about the powers of presiding officers. In order to prepare my address I read extensively the history of the Mother of Parliaments. In days gone by if a member of Parliament disobeyed the Chair, the Speaker could send him to the Tower of London and keep him there at his pleasure. When the offending member had atoned for his offence he could come into the House and go down on his bended knees and ask the Speaker for forgiveness. But times have changed. I shall not reflect upon what happens in another place, nor, indeed, is it within my province to do so. So far as this chamber is concerned, I shall not order any honorable senator to come to my private office for the purpose that has been mentioned by Senator Hendrickson, although I might - as I have done on many occasions in the past - invite him to have a private drink with me.

Yesterday Senator Sandford asked me why a question that he had asked in the Senate, and the answer furnished by a Minister thereto, on Thursday, the 25th May, had been deleted from the re-broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. I made certain inquiries, and the secretary of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcast ing Committee has furnished, through the Clerk of the Senate, the following information : -

I am advised by the Regional Officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that the deletion of Senator Sandford’s question and the answer thereto from the re-broadcast of Senate questions and answers on Thursday, 25th May,1950, was made for the reason that Senator Sandford later in the proceedings claimed that he had been misrepresented in the answer given to his question and had then made an explanation. The deletion was made pursuant to the requirement of the general principle, adopted by both Houses, governing the re-broadcast of question and answers. The relevant provisions of the general principle are as follows: - “ (b) When a Member makes a personal explanation in rebuttal of misrepresentation contained in a question asked that day or an answer thereto, the question and answer shall, subject to the next succeeding subparagraph, be excluded from the rebroadcast.

The Presiding Officer may, in his discretion, refer any case to the Joint Committee for decision as to whether such question and answer shall be excluded from the rebroadcast.”

J. Parkes, Secretary.

No cause for complaint similar to that made by Senator Sandford has previously arisen in the Senate, according to my knowledge, although similar circumstances have arisen in the House of Representatives on a number of occasions. In such circumstances I understand that the officials responsible for the re-broadcast of proceedings automatically delete the question and the answer thereto. Unfortunately, nothing was said to me by those officials in the instance mentioned by Senator Sandford, but they have undertaken that in future they will refer such instances to me for decision.

Senator SANDFORD:

– Following your statement, Mr. President, I ask leave to make an explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that leave be granted?

Senator Scott:

– No.

Leave not granted.

Senator ARNOLD:

– Do I understand from the statement that you have read, Mr. President, that if an answer to a question is followed by an objection, both the question and answer will be deleted from the subsequent re-broadcast? If so, when was that decision made by the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee? Until you made your announcement to-day, the Senate was under the impression that only statements made during the first 35 minutes of the Senate’s proceedings to which exception is taken would be deleted from the re-broadcast of questions. Your statement was the first indication that a question and answer had been deleted from the re-broadcast of the proceedings of either House for the reason that you mentioned.

The PRESIDENT:

– As I have said, deletions from the re-broadcast of proceedings of the House of Representatives have been made on several occasions. Apparently it is the practice that, if an honorable member or an honorable senator claims to have been misquoted or misrepresented, or takes exception to an answer given to him by a Minister, both the question and the answer shall be omitted from the rebroadcast. The point is this: If, when answering a question, a Minister makes a statement that the questioner believes to be quite wronar. or to misrepresent his question, it is unfair that it should be broadcast because the advantage would lie with the Minister. So far as I am aware, a deletion was made from a Senate re-broadcast for the first time yesterday. The broadcasting officer who deals with this matter automatically omitted the question and answer. The statement that I read to the Senate was from the Senate Journals of the 30th June, 1949. However, as I have said a deletion was not made from any Senate re-broadcast until yesterday. Deletions from House of Representatives re-broadcasts have been made automatically and without reference to me. Therefore I knew nothing about the matter, but I have been assured that in future I shall be informed of such happenings.

Senator SANDFORD:

– I can quite understand a deletion being made when a questioner states that he has been misrepresented in the reply to his question. My claim, however, was that I had been misrepresented on the previous day in reply to two questions that I had asked on that day and not on the day of the deletion from the broadcast.

The PRESIDENT:

– That puts a different complexion on the matter. I shall confer with the honorable senator so that the entire circumstances may be placed before the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee at its next meeting.

page 3415

QUESTION

TEA

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Arising out of a question that I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs a few weeks ago, which was apparently too hypothetical for his legal mind to comprehend, I now ask the Minister whether he will inform the Senate how much is paid out per annum in subsidies on imported tea? Can he also inform the Senate whether tea rationing will be continued, and if it is to be con tinued, whether the subsidy will still be paid so that the workers will be able to purchase something with their wages?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– No alteration whatever has been made in the payment of subsidy on tea since the subsidy was first introduced by the Chifley Government some years ago. Concerning the future of that subsidy, the honorable senator’s guess is as good as mine.

Senator AYLETT:

– I am satisfied with the answer given to my previous question by the Minister for Trade and Customs up to a point. I should like to know, however, how much the Commonwealth Government is paying annually in subsidizing the importation of tea into this country. If the Minister does not know the amount off-hand, will be obtain the information for me?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I thought that the honorable senator understood that at present we are working on the budget introduced last year by the then Treasurer, Mr. Chifley. If the honorable senator examines that budget, he will find that the estimated cost of the tea subsidy was between £5,500,000 and £6,250,000 a year.

page 3415

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Manufactured Goods

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Early in the life of this Government, a committee was established to encourage the export of the products of our secondary industries. A review published last week shows a continued decline in the exports of those goods. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the Government will make available any report that the committee has made, and tell the Senate what steps arc being taken by the Government to arrest this alarming drift?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have not had an opportunity to study the report to which the honorable senator has referred and I am not aware of any drift such as he suggests, but if he will put his question on the notice-paper, I shall have an answer prepared for him.

page 3416

SENATOR J. S. COLLINGS

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

by leave - I understand that to-day is the last occasion on which Senator Collings will take his seat in this chamber. In such circumstances, I am sure that the Senate will not disagree with the sentiments that I am about to express. I speak, of course, on behalf of honorable senators on this side of the chamber, but I hope that I shall be voicing the thoughts of all honorable senators, although I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) will have something to say both for himself and for his colleagues. I convey to Senator Collings our earnest wish that his characteristic vitality will sustain him in his days of peace, quiet, and leisure. But, somehow or other, the words “ peace, quiet and leisure “ do not seem to have an appropriate application to the honorable senator - certainly not to the Joseph Silver Collings, whom I have known since my boyhood days. My first recollection of the honorable senator was when he was a tireless and forceful worker and organizer in the great industrial movement. Later, I knew him as a member of the Legislative Council of Queensland, and later again, as a senator. As you well know, Mr. President, Senator Collings, like yourself, was one of the lonely three senators from Queensland who, at that time, constituted the whole of the Labour Opposition in this chamber. With the turn of political events, the honorable senator occupied at various times during the difficult days of the war the honoured and responsible positions of Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for the Interior and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Always forceful, he has been sometimes turbulent, but, in the hurly-burly of politics, quiet and leisure-.v never. Upon the last formal occasion when the honorable senator addressed this chamber, he gave expression to sentiments which I am sure found a responsive note in the hearts of many in and beyond his immediate audience. In the peace and quiet of his retirement, I trust that the honorable senator will have the comfort and pleasure of seeing those sentiments more widely accepted and acted upon.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

by leave - I am delighted to have the opportunity to associate myself with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) in paying a tribute to Senator Collings, with whom I have been associated in the Senate for the last twelve or thirteen years. I am sure that every one will agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. Both in the Government and in the Opposition, Senator Collings has displayed capacity, sometimes turbulence, and at other times tolerance. In fact, honorable senators on this side have often complained that he was too kind to the Government. I have received similar complaints to-day concerning myself. The Labour party, to which the honorable senator belongs, met this morning and said good-bye to him. His long association with the Senate has been characterized by honesty of purpose. He has not been overbearing in his adherence to that purpose and I feel confident that he carries the good- wishes of every member of the Parliament, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Snipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

by leave - I take this opportunity to associate myself with the kind words addressed to a distinguished senator who is retiring of his own volition from the Senate. I have been associated with Senator Collings for many years when he has been iri the Opposition and in the Government and have admired him as a fearless but fair fighter and one who has loved his country. The honorable senator is a shining example to migrants who want to settle in this country, for he has shown what can be accomplished with grit, initiative and enterprise. I shall always remember and appreciate the work he has done in this Senate for Australia.

Senator COURTICE (Queensland).by leave - I express to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) my appreciation of the very kind sentiments that prompted him to say a word of farewell to Senator Collings, who has served in this Senate for many years. I regard the retirement of the honorable senator with mixed feelings. I have had a friendship with Senator Collings extending without interruption over half a century and I know of no other person who has applied himself with such zeal, ability and integrity to the welfare of this nation and its* people. During the period when he was Minister associated with the Allied Works Council during the hectic years of the war, the honorable senator did great service for Australia. He has always devoted himself to the well-‘being of the people, particularly the working people, whose problems were fully understood by him. It is with very great regret that I realize . that Senator Collings is leaving the Senate. I hope that he will have years of good health in which to watch the activities of the Senate and the development of this country which he has loved from early childhood. I am sure that Senator Collings is happy in the knowledge that he has devoted his life to its well-being.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

by leave - I have mixed sentiments in speaking of the retirement of Senator Collings from the Senate. Looking .back, I believe that it was the 1st July, 1932, that Senator Collings, Senator J. V. McDonald, and you, Mr. President, came to this Senate. That day is well remembered by me. I was greatly concerned at their election to this chamber as it meant that I, together with my colleagues Senator Thompson and Senator Glasgow, who were defeated by them, retired from the Senate on the 30th June of that year. I was fortunate or unfortunate in returning to the Senate three years later. I think that Senator Collings will bear me out when I say that since my return to this Senate we have had the greatest friendship for each other, although we have been on opposite sides of politics and there have been many times when we have crossed political swords. Honorable senators are elected to represent their different ideals. Senator Collings has fought probably a little intensely at times, but he has always fought fairly, and I have always had the greatest admiration for him during the time that he has been a member of this Senate. I trust that the friendship will continue after Senator Collings retires. I shall not say “ Good-bye “, because I am sure that we shall meet often in Queensland. I hope that Senator Collings has many years before him, and that he will have an opportunity in his retirement to listen to the broadcasts of the proceedings in the Senate. Sometimes, no doubt, he will wish to be back again in the fight, but he will understand that his friends on both sides of the chamber are carrying on the work of the Senate, and trying to maintain the high standard that he himself set. I hope that Senator Collings will enjoy a well-deserved rest.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– I cannot allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words in appreciation of our great political orator, Joseph Silver Collings, with whom I have been associated for 35 years. We have had many arguments, especially in the early days, when he said that I was one of the calmest, quietest and most peaceful revolutionaries that had ever slit a throat. We entered the Senate together in 1932, and in 1935 there were only three Labour senators in the chamber. Senator Collings was the Leader of the Opposition, I was Deputy Leader and Senator J. V. MacDonald was Whip, and the three of us constituted the rank and file! In Senator Collings we have an Australian figure. He is well known from Brisbane to Perth, and from Melbourne to Cape York. He has always fought hard, and has had great confidence in himself, which is a good thing. It is right that a mau should have a good conceit of himself. At all times, Senator Collings has been prepared to fight fairly, but when the fight was over he was ready to be friendly with his most bitter political opponents. I do not think that, in the breast of Senator Collings, there has ever been, ill feeling towards any one, but when he was speaking, one would think that he was prepared to blow up his opponents there and then. I remember on one occasion, when he and I were Heatedly discussing some esoteric problems, the nature of which I have now forgotten, Senator Collings’s daughter, Kit, said to her father, “ Why don’t you try to see both sides, as Gordon does ? “ Senator Collings replied, “ There is only one side to see, and that is mine”.

Senator Collings has performed great work for the Labour party, and the work done by that party has been, in the main, for the welfare of Australia. Members of all political parties are striving for the good of Australia. On one occasion I was discussing with .Senator Collings the broadcasting of proceedings in the Senate, and I said, “Joe, do you remember the period from 1935 to 1938 when there were only three of us comprising the Opposition? What would have happened had the proceedings been broadcast in those days ? “ He replied, “ We would have given them plurry ‘ hell ! “ That was indicative of the political spirit of the man. Senator Collings is a man of great moral courage and, I believe, of great physical courage, also, although he denies that. I have seen him face a hostile audience, when one man of great stature approached the platform looking as if he was about to clean up Senator Collings in a couple of seconds. “ Joe “ picked up a heavy chair and said, “ If you come forward another yard I’ll smash you”. Well, the fellow did not come forward another yard. It was an interesting moment, and I do not know just what would have happened if he had come on. I shall tell another story which may contain a lesson for political candidates when they address meetings. The occasion was a political meeting in Brisbane at which Senator Collings was holding forth with great oratorical skill. As wc know, he is a master of the English language, and a great public speaker. He can hold a crowd, and tell a good story, as well as put his political point of view interestingly, cogently, and aptly. At this meeting, a great hulking fellow, who was rather the worse for drink, asked a question. With his usual courtesy, Senator Collings said, “ My friend, there is a proper time for questions “. The man replied, “ I want to ask a question, and I want you to answer ‘ Yes ‘ or ‘ No ‘ “. Senator Collings pointed out to him that it was not always possible to answer a question with “ Yes “ or “ No “, and then he unloaded that old jest first put over by Sir George Reid. The questioner had said that he himself would be able to answer “ Yes “ or “ No “ to any question, so Senator Collings asked him, “ Have you ceased beating your wife?” The point is that whether the man answered “ Yes “ or “ No “, his answer would be an admission that he had been beating his wife. The man became very excited, pushed his way through the crowd, rushed to the platform, upset the table, and struck Senator Collings on the jaw, breaking his dental plate. The bystanders seized the man and threw him out of the back door, where there was a drop of about 20 feet. When calm was restored, Senator Collings asked who the man was, and some one replied, “ He has just been released from gaol after serving six months for wife beating”.

Senator Collings and I have fought together on many a political field. Many years ago we of the Labour movement learned that in Senator Collings we had a man upon whom we could depend. In rain, hail or shine, he was always there to fight the cause as it should be fought. I honour him as a man of ability, political perspicacity, and moral and physical courage. The Senate will be the poorer for his leaving it. I wish him well, and I trust that he, as a young man of 85, will live to a ripe old age, and that we may help him to celebrate many more birthday parties.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

- by leave - I feel that I ought to say something on this occasion because of the very kind remarks that have been made about me this afternoon. I particularly thank the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) for the nice things that he said, because it is on record that we have crossed swords sometimes. At least, I do not know, whether he had any sword,but I did. I am leaving public life, or political life, at any rate, of my own volition because I believe it is the right thing to do. On the 11th of this month I passed my85th milestone. I am still conceited enough to believe that I could, with some advantage to Australian affairs, continue my work in the Senate, but I also think it is right that I should retire. I did not nominate at the last election. I have told my daughter, who is my only close relative and has stood by me through the years, that she has done two things ; first, she has kept me out of gaol, and secondly, she has kept me alive. Had it not been for her efforts, I might, having regard to what the President has described as my turbulent nature, have achieved distinction, in one way, at any rate.

I remember an occasion when a Premier of Queensland was being honoured. The assembled gathering sang “ For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow “. When the song had finished, the Premier said, “ Gentlemen, this is not the first time that that song has been sung to me. Usually I tell ray private secretary to make a note of all those who are not singing “ ! I have been assured this afternoon, and I accept the assurance with humility and gratitude, that all honorable senators present agree with the sentiments that have been expressed. I remember another occasion when a man was being honoured. The gathering said some very nice things of him, sang, “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow “ and generally expressed some very agreeable sentiments. When he came to reply, he said, “ Gentlemen, I do not believe that I am as good as you have said I am, and I am quite certain that I am not as bad as most of you are thinking I am”! I do not feel that way this afternoon.

I said on the 8th March that I would not speak again in this chamber, but this speech has been forced upon me. I believe that all members of Commonwealth and State Parliaments and municipalities in this country have, in these days, an unusual responsibility. We have to do the ordinaryeveryday things that must be done. We must assemble here, take part in debates and do our best to raise the standard of comfort of the people of this wonderful country. But I emphasize that the developments that are now taking place in the world must bring home to all of us a new lesson. The world to-day is not the world with which we have been acquainted during most of our lifetime. It is an entirely new world, in which scientists are developing methods of destroying human life that were previously beyond our comprehension. The scientists say that the tremendous engines of destruction that they are developing may be used for industrial purposes and be of immense benefit to mankind. The question is whetherwe are going to use them for destruction or construction. It seems to me that that imposes upon every one of us a new and greater responsibility.

In conclusion, I shall recite a poem that I learned some years ago. It is -

Isn’t it strange that princes and kings

And clowns that caper in sawdust rings.

And common folk like you and I,

Are builders of eternity?

To each is given a book of rules,

A shapeless mass and a kit of tools,

And each must fashion, ere life has flown,

A stumbling block or a stepping stone.

May every one of us, to the best of his ability, build stepping stones rather than stumbling blocks.

page 3419

QUESTION

MR. TRYGVE LIE

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister the following questions, upon notice : - 1. (a) Is it a fact that the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) made an attack on Mr. Trygve Lie, SecretaryGeneral of the. United Nations Organization, stating inter alia that Mr. Lie had played the ignoble role of a ready accomplice of Soviet interests; (b) if so, was the honorable member voicing the opinions of the Government?

  1. If not, will the Government, in view of the world-wide prestige of Mr. Lie, take immediate steps to have the honorable member’s statement repudiated?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : - 1.(a) I refer the honorable senator to the official records of parliamentary debate contained in Hansard of the 25th May, 1950. 1. (b) and 2. As the honorable senator is aware, any honorable member may address the House on any matter he desires on the adjournment of the House. I may assure the honorable member that the Government will follow the normal methods of making statements on its own policy.

page 3420

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MAHER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that two Czech migrants who arrived in Australia only four weeks ago were committed for trial at Parramatta, New South Wales, on Wednesday, the 17th May, charged with brutally assaulting and robbing an Australian citizen.
  2. If so, and if these two Czechs are ultimately found guilty, will he undertake to deport them to their own country as undesirables.
Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer -

As inferred by the honorable senator, the charges against these two men are sub-judice and I must await the findings of the court before deciding whether any particular course of action is called for on the part of the immigration authorities. I, therefore,refrain from comment at this stage so far as these particular cases are concerned. Speaking generally, however, I draw attention to the fact that any person not born in Australia who, within five years of his arrival in the Commonwealth, commits an offence which is punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for twelve months or more, renders himself liable to deportation. Under this and other provisions in our immigration laws there is ample power to deal with any newcomer who does not conform with our accepted standards of behaviour and this power has been exercised by me, where I have considered it necessary. Itake this opportunity to point out that you will always find among the people of any race - including our own - an element who, by their actions, are liable to bring discredit on their fellow countrymen. The conduct of the overwhelming majority of newcomers to Australia compares favorably with that of any other section of the community andI am anxious to ensure that their reputation shall not be prejudiced by the indiscretions of a very small minority.

page 3420

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) put -

That the Senate, at its rising to-morrow, adjourn to Friday next, at 10.30 a.m.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 33

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3420

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 30th May (vide page 3338), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– Immediately prior to the adjournment of the Senate last evening I was speaking about the entry into this country of a few Communists in support of the peace movement of the world. I had mentioned that after the “ Red “ Dean of Canterbury arrived in Melbourne he addressed a peace conference. On the platform with him were a number of Communists, members of the Australian Labour party, and some members of this chamber. I understand that at the conference, which was attended by many thousands of people, about £4,000 was collected. Both the Labour party and the Liberal party support peace and goodwill on earth. However, the “ Red “ Dean of Canterbury was used by the Communist party to allay the suspicions of the free peoples of the earth, and to give them the idea that we want to preserve peace at any price, although the party that he represents, the Communist party, is sponsored by Russia, which country is “ flat out “ manufacturing armaments with which to gain control of the world by force. As the Russian Empire is developing rapidly, the few peoples left who love peace and freedom have to decide whether they will fight communism before the Communists succeed in gaining control of the world. A pattern has been produced by the Communist party. Its members have a goal to reach and are steadily pursuing a plan of action that is designed to achieve world control. It would be a sorry state of affairs if the Australian people were to wake up one day to find that they were under the control of the Communist party. The Communist party was freed from the ban that was placed upon it by a former Liberal government in 1942. Between then and 1946, the membership of the Communist party in Australia increased by 600 per cent, and since 1946 the number of its supporters has increased by a further 200 per cent, or 300 per cent. It is growing very quickly. We should be careful lest the free people of Australia, are swallowed by the movement. The Communist party believes that the end justifies the means, and that any means, even the most foul and unscrupulous, are justified in order to obtain the domination of the world. Evidently the Communists are prepared to do anything to Rain control of this country. To-day. they are securing key positions in the trade union movement, and we have witnessed their efforts to impede production, which is so necessary for Australia. Why are they attempting to interfere with production ? The reason is that they hope by creating disruption to attain control of the country. Members of the Labour party must be as aware of that fact as are supporters of the Government. In order to disorganize production the Communists must obtain control of the trade union movement, and they are slowly but surely accomplishing that end. As an illustration of what I am savin <r T shall emote the following passage from an article headed “ The Attack on Trade Unionism which appeared in a book entitled The Communist v. The Peo rile -

The Australian system of arbitration and conciliation is recognized the -world over as a model for the protection and welfare of the working-class, and a monument to the efforts of trade unionists in this country. But, according to instructions in the communist “ Handbook for Tutors”, published in 1945 by Marx House, Sydney, this must be destroyed because - “ The dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only after the complete smashing of the bourgeois State apparatus. This is necessary because the only way to destroy one force is with a superior force.”

That passage sets out clearly the reason for the efforts made by the Communists to obtain control of the trade unions, which Labour has done nothing to prevent. The article goes on to state -

It was Lenin who declared that “ Without the Trade Unions revolution is impossible “, and as will be only too clear to the reader of succeeding pages dealing with communist penetration into and control of many of our “ key “ unions, the communist policy does not seek the betterment of conditions for the worker, but it campaign of disruption and destruction that will lay low all that Labour has toiled patiently to build over the years.

Early in their organized history, communists in this country realized, or had it pointed out to them by Moscow, that they ha:l little hope of

Poizing power in Australia through the normal democratic channels.

Members of the Liberal party were elected on the promise that if the anti-Labour parties were returned to office they would take effective action against communism. We have striven to implement that undertaking, but we could do so more quickly if we received the co-operation of the Labour party in the Parliament. If the Opposition ceased its delaying tactics we should be able to pass through the Parliament the legislation to which the people are looking forward. The joint policy statement delivered by Mr. Menzies on behalf of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party was very definite in expressing our attitude towards communism. The relevant passage states -

The day has gone by for treating Communism as a legitimate’ political philosophy. Our attitude has been one of great tolerance. We conceded freedom, and were rewarded by a series of damaging industrial disturbances with no true industrial foundation. The Opposition asked for a Royal Commission, which was contemptuously refused.

The Governnent was temporarily stung to action by Communist attempts tn hold up the rocket range project. attempts which were described by the Attorney-General himself as made “ in the interest’s of a foreign power “. Then, once more, the Government lapsed into inactivity Tt permitted Communists to destroy our friendly relations with the Dutch. It appointed Communists to Government Boards. From this spineless futility it temporarily emerged once more only when a white-hot public opinion forced it to move over the recent coal strike.

Senator Aylett:

– From what is the honorable senator reading?

Senator SCOTT:

– The statement from which I have been reading was good enough to smash the Labour party on the 10th December last. It continues -

Communism in Australia is an alien and destructive pest. If elected, we shall outlaw it. The Communist party will be declared subversive and unlawful, and dissolved.

A receiver will be appointed to deal with its assets.

Subject to appeal, the Attorney-General will be empowered to declare other bodies substantially Communist; to follow the party into any “new form and attach illegality to that new association.

No person now a member of the Communist party shall be employed or paid a fee by the i Commonwealth

Senator Aylett:

– I rise to order. If the honorable senator is not quoting, but is reading his speech, I submit that he is out of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - The honorable senator is not in order in reading his speech.

Senator SCOTT:

– In reply to the interjection-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! I have indicated that the honorable senator is not in order in reading his speech.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order. The point of order that has been taken by Senator Aylett-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Is Senator Wright reflecting on my ruling?

Senator Wright:

– Not at all.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator is not entitled to speak to a point of order on which I have already ruled.

Senator O’sullivan:

– I think that some misunderstanding has arisen in this matter. No reflection on your ruling, sir, was intended. I think the misunderstanding has arisen from the fact that Senator Scott is not reading his speech, but was reading a quotation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- If Senator Scott indicates that he is quoting from some document, he is in order: but he cannot read his speech. That is definite. Senator Scott will resume his remarks, but will indicate from what he is reading.

Senator SCOTT:

– The document from which I have been reading is the joint policy speech of the present Prime Minister (.Mr. Menzies) and the present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), who were respectively Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Australian Country party in the House of Representatives in the last Parliament, when the statement was prepared. I have already made that clear, but I repeat it now foi the benefit of Senator Aylett. I desire, with your permission, sir, to complete the quotation, by reading the following words : -

  1. . nor shall any such person be eligible for any office in a registered industrial organization.

The laws with respect to sedition or other subversive activities will be reviewed and strengthened. Conviction under such laws will disqualify from employment under the Crown or from office in a registered organisation

That is the policy enunciated by the antiLabour parties, and on which they were elected to office. Throughout the election campaign we spoke on that policy in all parts of Australia, and despite the efforts made by the Australian Labour party to discredit our proposals we were strong enough to defeat the Chifley Socialist Government.

I propose now to say a few words in connexion with an article entitled, “ The Covenant on Human Right “, that appeared in a United Nations bulletin. That article deals with the rights that should be enjoyed by citizens of the world within the framework of their respective Status. There are such rights as freedom of speech, the right to marry, and the right to enter or leave a country at will. There are 35 such rights enumerated. The concluding words are these -

This freedom shall bc subject only to such limitations as are pursuant to law and which are necessary for the protection of national security, public order, public safety, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

The United Nations consists of between 50 and 60 nations all of which agree that, the rights that I have mentioned should be granted to their citizens so long as they respect law and order. The Communist party has no desire to respect the law; it has never respected order. It believes that the end justifies the means, and therefore it does not hesitate to stoop to underhand methods. I believe, that we as a nation should expel communism from this country. The Government is pledged to the abolition of the Communist party. That was a feature of the joint policy speech of the Opposition parties prior to the last general election. We are endeavouring now to give effect to our election pledge. If this bill is passed, the Communist party will cease to exist, and other affiliated and subservient organizations ‘will be outlawed. Communists who pursue disruptive tactics in industry and thus hamper production in this country will be declared. If they are Government employees they will lose their jobs. No declared person will be permitted to hold office in certain key trade unions. The Government has an obligation to develop this country and to increase production. Only by increasing production can we increase the flow of our goods overseas. Did the Labour Government do anything to increase production in this country? Only on one or two occasions did it oppose the Communists. In fairness, I admit that the Chifley Government acted against the Communists during the coal strike last year, but for a while it was touch and go whether the Communist party or the Labour Government would win. The then Opposition in this Parliament gave the Government every assistance. It offered some very good, advice which ultimately had to be followed. The strike cost this country approximately £200,000,000 in wages and lost production. While the strike was on, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies) urged the Labour Government to enforce a secret ballot on the coal-fields. That proposal was rejected and the strike continued. In the end, the Government had to get servicemen to quell the strike.

Senator Nash:

– What does the honorable senator mean by that?

Senator SCOTT:

– The Labour Government sent servicemen to the coalfields to produce coal and the miners knowing that the servicemen could do the job, had to go back to work; but it took the Labour Government six weeks to find that out. Eventually the coal strike ended. Mr. Sharkey was sent to gaol, and he is still in gaol. Had there not been a change of government on the 10th December, he would probably be at liberty now, and carrying on his Communist activities. He has been to Russia twice that I know of, getting ideas on how to gain control of this country. I cannot understand why the Labour Government tolerated his activities. Today, other members of the Communist party are going overseas for the same purpose. Their aim is to foster revolution in this country, and to slaughter those who oppose them. Are we going to stand that? Honorable senators opposite apparently believe in letting the Communists do just as they like.

Senator Nash:

– We do not believe that, and have never believed it.

Senator SCOTT:

– The actions of the Opposition prove what it is thinking. We judge people by their actions, and, as I have said, only on two occasions has the Labour party fought the Communists. Senator McKenna said yesterday that no party had done more than the Labour party had to fight communism. We do not believe that. We believe that this legislation will strike a severe blow at the Communists as did the banning of the Communist party by the Menzies Government in 1940. We have sufficient courage to ban the Communist party. Words are cheap and honorable senators opposite do not hesitate to use them. They say that they fight the Communists everywhere. Is that true? I could read a few statements that the Senate would find most illuminating, but I have no desire to disturb the tranquility of this chamber. We have just heard a conciliatory speech by Senator Collings, and I should not like to upset the harmony of the chamber. The preamble to this bill states, in part -

And whereas the Australian Communist Tarty, in accordance with the basic theory of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin, engages in activities or operations designed to assist or accelerate the coining of a revolutionary situation, in which the Australian Communist Party, acting as a revolutionary minority, would be able to seize power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat;

That is the aim of the Communist party. The Labour party is opposed to this measure and proposes to amend it. The bill is designed to outlaw the Communist party and to protect the individual who has tho interests of his country at heart. The Opposition apparently wants to protect the individuals who will be liable to be declared under this legislation. These people have not the interests of this country at heart. They owe their allegiance not to Australia but to Russia. No innocent person will be in danger of being declared under this bill. It is the duty of this Government to ensure that any person in this country who owes his allegiance to a foreign power shall be” watched very carefully and, if necessary, deported. Australia is a democratic nation. Our way of life is also that of the United States of America and the United Kingdom, the two greatest democracies in the world.

Senator Morrow:

– What is the honorable senator’s definition of a Communist?

Senator SCOTT:

– The honorable senator should know. He attended the peace conference. He was with the “Red Dean”. Why did he not ask the “Red Dean” for a definition of a Communist?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! The honorable senator must not reply to interjections. All interjections are disorderly.

Senator SCOTT:

– Will any honorable senator opposite argue that a person who owes allegiance to a foreign power should be permitted to enjoy the protection of a democratic country? I believe that the ultimate aim of the Labour party is to keep this country free, and to safeguard it from communism, but the actions of some members of that party sometimes make one wonder. The growth of communism in Australia can be stopped, and 1 believe that by introducing this measure the Government is adopting the best method of stopping it. We have promised the people to ban the Communists and I should very much like to see the Opposition support the bill in its entirety. Communists in this country would then realize that they could not hope for the support of any political party. Honorable senators opposite have stated that they support certain sections of the bill, but in the next breath they have said that the individual must not be touched. Probably they will say next that the Government must not touch the Communist organiza tion. They seek to destroy this bill by opposing the provisions that give the Government sufficient power to obtain complete control of the Communists throughout Australia.

I believe that the Communist party and the Communists are the greatest menace that has ever faced this country. Australians who adopt the creed of communism are accepting something that would put Australia back at least 100 years. Under communism honorable senators opposite who claim to represent the workers would see the people disfranchised and bereft of the tradeunion movement, working more than 40 hours a week and being sub.vervient to the people of Russia. Honorable senators on the Government side will oppose communism in this country and look to honorable senators opposite to support the bill. If they enable the Government to put this bill through in its entirety, honorable senators will be doing a great service to this country and to the Australian Labour party.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat has paid very little attention to the problem that this bill is designed to rectify. I have heard the question of communism discussed at great length in many places but I have never heard anyone put forward such arguments as those adduced by Senator Scott. This Parliament is discussing one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced into it. The bill is entitled -

A bill for an act to provide for the dissolution of the Australian Communist party and of other Communist organizations, to disqualify Communists from holding certain offices, and for purposes connected therewith.

I believe that this Parliament is discussing a bill to legalize a police . state in Australia.

Senator Spicer:

– Will the honorable senator oppose it?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I believe that that is the purpose of the bill and it has been introduced because of the wave of hysteria which is passing over Australia and across the world on communism. It is rather remarkable that the first nine words in the Communist

Manifesto of Marx and Engels written over 100 years ago stated -

A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism.

It is a long while since those words were written and many efforts have been made since then to endeavour to prevent communism from sweeping over the world. Now, in 1950, the Government has introduced into the Australian Parliament a bill to dissolve the Australian Communist party, and there are people like the honorable senator who has just spoken who believe that when this bill becomes law, that will be the end of communism and all its works in Australia. As Senator Grant aptly interjected, Senator Scott is an innocent abroad. Recently I read the March, 1950, issue of the United Nations World Magazine and in that magazine Bertrand Russell, a writer known to all honorable senators, stated -

Since the year a.d. 1,000 when the end of the world was expected there has never been a time of such general and profound anxiety as now afflicts the Western world. I should like to think that the anxiety will prove as groundless now as then, but 1 And this hardly possible. However, since diagnosis must precede prognosis, let us first try to assess the causes of tension. These causes are of several kinds: economic, political and ideological. The problem is unduly simplified if any one of those is emphasized to the exclusion of the others. To begin with the economic causes: There are rich nations and poor nations, and rich individuals in poor nations, and poor individuals in rich nations. Speaking very broadly, rich nations and individuals tend to side with America, poor nations and individuals with Russia.

Those points are contained in the opening chapter from an article headed, “ Is a third world war inevitable? “. I think that those words are very appropriate to the situation in which we find ourselves today. That situation is causing a great deal of hysteria. In discussing this measure honorable senators should try to understand why communism has grown in other parts of the world and in Australia. Let honorable senators consider whether this bill can prevent the growth of socialism or communism. What will this bill do? It certainly will dissolve the Australian Communist party. It will cause a good deal of inconvenience to many well meaning people in this country and to people of a studious nature who are searching for knowledge and desire to understand the movements that are taking place throughout the world. They are the people who are anxious to understand why it is that a nation like Russia, which was looked upon a few years ago as being one of the most backward countries of the world, has grown in the space of a few short years from a state of feudalism to a nation that is causing great worry to all countries. In his speech last evening, the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) said that Russia was the nation that was causing the fear of war to be uppermost in the minds of the people. Under this bill, any one who cares to investigate what communism really is and searches the works of Marx or Lenin can be declared as Communists. They can be denied their right to live or work.

Senator SPICER:
LP

– That is nonsense.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is not nonsense, because the definition of communism which is contained in this bill states that it applies to any body of persons - which supports or advocates, or, at any time after the specified date and before the dato of commencement of this act, supported or advocated, the objectives, policies, teachings, principles or practices of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin, or promotes, or, at any time within that period, promoted, the spread of communism, as so expounded;

That is just a bare statement referring to Marx and Lenin. There has been no attempt by the supporters of this bill to tell honorable senators what were the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

Senator Grant:

– The Government does not mention Stalin.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Stalin did not get a mention. The Government did not tell honorable senators about Engels, or the other great social philosophers. It has put forward a bill with that bald statement. Communism has developed over many years and the teachings of Marx are not altogether sacrosanct. There are in the socialist world almost as many schools of thought which take Marx a.o their basis as there are sects in the Christian world which take the Bible for their foundation and believe that Christ was the Founder of the Christian religion.

Senator Spicer:

– That is exactly why the Government specified Marx and Lenin.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Why distinguish between Marx and Lenin, Marx and Lassalle, Marx and Vandervelde, Marx and Jaures, Marx and Liebkneck, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. Why distinguish between Marx and Lenin and the rest of the authors who have been responsible for the development of the thought that is uppermost in Labour ranks to-day. The Government has specifically taken Marx and Lenin simply because it thinks that it can cause the people of Australia to panic.

Senator Spicer:

– They advocate revolution.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Marx toyed with the idea -of free trade, and also with protection. He and his followers at first believed that the cheap loaf would be the solution of the economic ills of the working class, and that protection was preventing the people from getting cheap bread. Others, basing their theories upon the teaching of Marx, favoured protection. They believed that if they were able to build up the nation’s industry under the protection of a sheltering tariff they would be able to improve the conditions of the workers. Is it suggested, therefore, that those who advocate protection now are supporting the teachings of Marx? A shorter working week was also advocated by Marx.

Senator Mattner:

– Marx took his ideas from Engels.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– That is a poor compliment to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), who, when speaking to this bill, put the blame for communism on Marx. One would have thought that such eminent gentlemen, when at the university, would have studied the writings of Marx and Engels, and that, when they came to frame this legislation, they would not make a mistake and name the wrong man as the author of communism. I thank Senator Mattner for directing attention to the shortcomings of those who are responsible for this legislation. Marx also believed in what we now call a “living wage” and the shorter working week. Therefore, we can readily understand the fear in the minds of trade unionists regarding this legislation. If they advocate a shorter working week and a decent living wage, they may be accused of advocating the policies of Marx.

Senator Fraser:

– Marx also advocated adult suffrage.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Yes, he and his followers believed in gaining control of the national legislature. As time went on, they probably recognized that some of their original ideas needed to be revised, and they came to believe that, by gaining control of parliament, they could ameliorate the conditions of the masses. Reference has been made to Lenin. He is one of the later leaders of the Communist movement. He has given his interpretation of it, just as Stalin has. Probably, as time goes on, Communist theories will be further developed in accordance with the industrial conditions existing in various countries. Other students of communism will arise, and will interpret the Communist manifesto in their own way; yet the Government now brings in a bill to suppress communism. If the Government is really anxious to stem the growth of communism in Australia, it should try to find out why the movement has grown here.

Senator Ward:

– The Liberals made th: Communist party.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Yes, the conditions for which the Liberals are responsible helped the Communist party to develop. The Labour party has always opposed communism. The Labour party has grown out of the trade union movement. It has been responsible for the political leadership of the trade unions from the beginning. Years aco, those who led the trade unions, believed in direct methods, as set out in the Communist manifesto. The Labour leaders found that, whatever they gained by strikes, was taken away from them by legislative action. They then turned their attention to the parliaments so as to gain control of law-making, and the Australian Labour party has now become the political instrument of the Labour movement. Then the Communist party arose, claiming that the Labour party was not doing its job properly, and ever since then the Labour party has fought the Communists.

Indeed, the Labour party has suffered more from the growth of the Communist party than have our political opponents in this Parliament. As a matter of fact, the Communists have helped the present Government parties to get into office, because our opponents painted terrible pictures of what would happen if Labour were returned. TI .ay used the Communist party as an instrument with which to attack the Labour party.

The Communist party was unknown as a distinct organization in Australia until after the Russian Revolution of 1917, although Communist theories had been expounded by writers and lecturers. It is interesting to note that, despite the persecution of Communists in Russia by the Czarist Government, Lenin and Trotsky were able to return to Russia after the revolution, and take charge of it. Did the decrees of the ‘.Ian prevent the growth of communism in Russia? Certainly not. The conditions of the people were so bad that the soil was fertile for the growth of communism, and when the exiled Communist leaders returned, they were able to attach to themselves the great mass of the people and overthrow the existing regime. Some say that communism, pure and unadulterated is not yet in existence in Russia. I do not know. Last night, Senator McKenna pointed out that the Communist-controlled countries in eastern Europe were now under the leadership of men who, in years gone by had suffered prison and exile for their Communist beliefs. They have now come *to the top because of the bad conditions that existed in their countries. So in Australia the Communist party has increased up to a point, and it made its greatest progress during the depression. The Labour Government then in power, which had been entrusted with the leadership of the working class, was prevented by a hostile Senate from taking the measures necessary to provide for the great mass of the people - those who were hungry, who were losing their homes, who felt that they had no chance, who were down and out, and were likely to remain so. As Bertrand Russell said, the poor people in all countries turn to Russia. The poor people in Australia, “because of the conditions under which they had to live, turned to the Communist ideology which, put into operation in Russia, had, they believed, improved the conditions of the great mass of the people. During those years, owing to the actions of the Commonwealth Parliament and other Parliaments in this country which denied the right of the political party leading the workers to make good, the Australian Communist party made great progress. In recent years, since the Labour party has been able to “ deliver the goods “, it has lost ground. At the 1932 general election, when the Scullin Government was defeated, Communist party candidates received a considerable number of votes. I remember the comment that was made then by an eminent prelate.. He said that his only wonder was that they did not poll more votes. Since then, the chance of the Communists to win the hearts of the Australian people has receded.

Senator SPICER:

– What about the trade unions ?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I shall deal with the trade unions shortly. It is remarkable that now, when we are enjoying a period of prosperity, some of the people who supported the Labour party in the past have apparently forgotten the work that it did to emancipate them. At the last general election, they voted for the non-Labour parties. Bertrand Russell has said that the rich people in some countries are turning to America. That is happening in Australia. Many people who, a few years ago, were waving the Union Jack, are now talking about “our friends the Americans”. They want to be on the side of the strong. Even some of the workers have forgotten the great work that was done over the years to emancipate them.

The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has asked about the trade unions. It is true that some leaders of industrial unions are persons who have expounded the theory of communism. I believe that the reason for the introduction of this measure is that strikes and industrial disturbances have occurred for which the leaders of trade unions have been blamed. Because the rank and file trade unionists, in these days of prosperity, are tending to forget that, in times of adversity, they thanked the trade union leaders whom they are now criticizing, it is believed that if this bill is put into operation strikes will cease. In my opinion, that is a mistaken belief. When honorable senators opposite and others talk of the great arbitration system that has been established in this country and say that the trade unions are now a part of our national life and have a most important part to play in the affairs of the nation, my mind goes back to the time when I was a member of an industrial organization and was, with others, trying to strengthen that organization so that we could secure better conditions for a section of the workers which, to-day, is proscribed by this bill. I refer to the transport workers.

Senator Spicer:

– What does the honorable senator mean by “ proscribed by this bill”?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is provided in the bill that if an organization is controlled by people who are declared to be Communists, the organization will be banned.

Senator Spicer:

– That does not apply to trade unions.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It will apply to individuals. It is remarkable that when the Victorian Parliament, during a period of industrial trouble in that State, had passed a measure somewhat similar to this one, the first three persons who were prosecuted under it were not members of the Communist party, but members of the industrial group of the Australian Labour party who had been fighting against direct action by the workers.

Senator Cameron:

– That is the intention of this bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I believe it is. What has been the attitude in the past of those who are now embracing the cause of trade unionism? I remember that, in my earlier years, we were told that the industrial trouble that was. occurring then was due to the actions of agitators, and that the trade union movement would be an excellent movement if only it would rid itself of the agitators, who were stirring up strife. They went on to jobs, saw the conditions under which men were working, and tried to improve them. Speaking from soap boxes, they asked the workers whether they intended to submit to those conditions. They made- some very inflamatory speeches. They talked revolution. Henry Lawson, one of the greatest of Australian poets, wrote of and predicted a bloody revolution. Others besides myself have been inspired by his poetry. If he were alive to-day and wrote poems such as Faces in the Street, the power and majesty of the law, through pimps and stooges, would be invoked against him, and he would be declared under this measure. There was a time when trade union officials were denied access to men on the job. They had to sneak round corners, meet men as they came away from their work and establish contact with them by all kinds of subterfuges so that they could form trade unions. The employers said that trade unions were all right, except for the agitators. Now it is said that strikes are inspired by the Communists in. our midst. I wonder how many Communists there were in the old Australian Workers Union or the Shearers Union in the 18909. I wonder how many Communists there were then in the coal miners’ unions.

Senator Grant:

– They read Karl Marx, just the same.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Of course they did, and possibly many of them were inspired by his writings. But they were not Communists. I wonder how many Communists there were in the clothing industry of this country in the days when men, women and children were sweated for day after day and when, in order to keep body and soul together, they had to take work home with them and labour through the night. I wonder how many Communists there were in the clothing industry when girls entering the industry worked for nothing for twelve months in order to learn the trade and were paid only 2s. 6d. a week for the next twelve months. The seeds of Communism were sown then. It was because of conditions such as those that people began to think that communism would help them out of their troubles. A measure of this kind would not prevent the development of that thought. The greatest bulwarks against communism are the development of the Australian Labour party and a fuller and better life for our people. Communism has lost ground in this country in recent years because the workers now enjoy better conditions. They do not want the turmoil and trouble of a bloody revolution. It has been said - I believe correctly - that revolutions are splendid events for those that come after them, but not for those who are engaged in them. Our people do not want to endure the trials and tribulations that the people of Russia and other countries have had to endure. I have disagreed with members of the Communist party because, with them, it is always Russia. I have said to them that there is no reason for us to think of Russia as a guiding star or to make a saint of Lenin or any other great Russian leader. I believe that if we in Australia follow our own ideals and ideas we shall ultimately win the ‘struggle for a fuller and better life.

In the course of the campaign preceding the general election at which the Scullin Government was defeated - at that time conditions were bad - I said that the people could adopt one of two courses. They could either return a Labour government, which would bring prosperity to them, or they could return the nonLabour parties, which denied that there was any possibility of Australia emerging from the depression for some time. I told the people that, if they chose the nonLabour parties they should not be astonished, if, in the future, another body arose which would say, “ Away with political action. We shall do what we want to do by force “. Fortunately, that stage has not been reached in this country. During its period of office Labour did much to check revolutionary tendencies. Honorable senators opposite are sadly mistaken if they think that this measure will ensure peace in the trade unions and result in increased production. As I have already pointed out, I was an industrial organizer for many years, and I well remember the conditions that existed in industry in bygone days. The Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union is now controlled by Mr. Brown, who is an avowed Communist. Although it has been suggested that the executive of that union consists of Communist sympathizers, I do not know whether they are members of the Communist party. Certainly they were not members of that party during my association with the union. They have gained power because of the arrogant behaviour of persons who previously controlled the industry. In these days of full employment men can be very selective about the avocation that they will follow. At the period to which I have referred, a permanent government appointment, carrying with it rights and privileges that were not available in private employment, was much sought after by young men in this country. However, because the controllers of industry were aware of that fact, a worker’s soul was not his own. I recollect that in some instances applications for deferment of transfers, because of sickness in the family, were rejected out-of-hand. In other cases men who had left their homes at 5 o’clock in the morning in order to commence work at half-past seven were charged with idling when they attempted to make a billy of tea at 10 o’clock.

When reference is made to “ snoopers “ in Parliament House, I am reminded of the manner in which the bosses in those days used to snoop on unfortunate workers, who were afraid even to look away from their work for fear of dismissal. Even when workers were practically exhausted as a result of their labours they were exhorted to do more work. I thank God that the conditions of those days will not recur, in this country. Men are now offered, as an inducement to accept employment, the very things for which employees were formerly punished. I remember instances of arbitration courts and wages boards awarding workers increases of only 3d. or 6d. a day, after their unions had expended large sums of money presenting their claims. For so long as such conditions exist there will be strikes, irrespective of legislation that is enacted by parliaments. The resentment and desire to rebel, still in evidence on the coal-fields, had its origin in the coal-mining industry in England when the founders of the trade union movement were, deported to Australia. The Fabian Society and the Chartist movement were ostracized, and the coal-miners of those days were deprived of their living because of their trade union sympathies. Yet the Government apparently considers that the proposed legislation will overcome all troubles on the coal-fields! If the Government desired effectively to prevent the growth of communism in this country it should adopt the principles that have been expounded by the Labour party, and ensure that the workers shall be able to enjoy a better and a fuller life.

At the committee stage I shall deal with other phases of the proposed legislation. I hope that when honorable senators opposite are endeavouring to define a Communist, and referring to the teachings of Marx and Engels, they will clearly indicate what they are striving to achieve. The workers with whom I was associated some years ago had the unpleasant experience of informers, spies and pimps being amongst them. In many instances they suffered persecution because of information that had been supplied to the bosses by informers. I belong to a race of people that know what it means when the informer, the pimp or the spy has been amongst them. They have suffered persecution, because of the work of the informer. I never thought I would live to see the day when people, or descendants of people who have suffered such persecution, would stand in this place and advocate that this country should be handed over to the. pimp and the spy, and that, by act of Parliament, a Minister would have the power to declare a person a traitor, on the unsworn and uncorroborated evidence of informers. A man could be denied almost the right to live because of the odium cast upon him by such a declaration. The bill before the Senate is the first step towards the establishment of a police State in this country. Irrespective of the nature of the crime with which a man is charged, he should have the right to appear in the halls of justice and be tried by his fellow men. If justice is to prevail, the Government should accept the amendments that will be proposed by the Opposition at the committee stage.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

Senator MCCALLUM:
“New South Wales

.- This is a bill to deal with the enemies of Australia, foreign and domestic, actual or potential, and I shall attempt to examine it throughout from that point of view. It is not an industrial measure, and it is not a measure that is concerned with the ordinary politics of the country. A great deal of it is incidental to its main purpose. Therefore, I suggest that any consideration of detail be left to the committee stage, because, unless we admit the essential purpose of the bill, we are likely to criticize it on all kinds of grounds which I believe will disappear once we admit its essential purpose. It is for us - not the Government, but the whole Senate - to grasp the seriousness of the emergency that confronts us. We are under a very great disadvantage in attempting to show the extent of the peril, because there is a danger - I hope not very close or very great - of actual war, and we wish to avert that danger. . But there is also another danger, which is that the purposes that are commonly sought for in war by aggressors will be achieved in the guise of peace. It is because of that danger that somewhat extraordinary legislation is demanded. The term “ cold war” has been used; and whilst I dislike rhetorical and ambiguous phrases in debate, I think that that phrase has come to mean something very definite. It means that there is a great world power, the one with the greatest military might, which is using, under the forms of peace, agents in all countries that it wishes to dominate, to bring about the dislocation of industry and the break-up of the life of those countries. This is, I emphasize, a defence measure. It is based on the defence power; and whilst it is true that it involves a use of the defence power such as we have never known in time of peace - or, to express the situation more accurately, in a time when we were not engaged in actual conflict: - it is only by using that power that we can avert war, by bringing the economy of the nation to such a state of preparation that we can avert war. Of course, that has to be proved, and it will depend largely on the point of view of the individual whether he accepts what we say. I earnestly implore all members of the Senate to open their minds to whatever truth emerges about the actual situation in Europe and in Asia to-day.

It is often charged against persons who support measures of this nature that they have a sympathy with fascism. I think that I have a record as an anti-fascist that is second to none in Australia. During the time that I was a commentator with the Australian Broadcasting Commission, I was continually accused of being sympathetic to communism because of the criticism that I made of all the rulers in Europe, and outside Europe, who could be classed as fascist. My realization of the dangers of communism “has been of slow growth. I was always prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who govern Russia. I knew the previous history of that nation. I knew what Czarism meant, and- I made allowances for those who were the heirs of Czarism, which I possibly did not make for people in Germany and Italy, where there was a much more humane tradition and from whom we, therefore, had a right to expect much more. But the realization has been borne in on me, as it has been on Bertrand Russell, who has been quoted by a member of the Opposition, that the new regime in Russia is the heir to Russia’s Czarism, with its policy of imperialist expansion, its system of internal control through secret police, and various other methods that have no affinity whatever with democratic rule. We have found the foreign policy of modern Russia to be continually aggressive and continually expansive. A look at the map of Europe will show how it has been changed during and since the war. We know that an agreement was made at Yalta. I do not wish to criticize those who made that agreement or those who supported it. I believe that it was the best agreement that seemed possible to Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt at the time. We must consider the conditions that then existed. Roosevelt did not know the strength of our side or the increasing weakness of the other side. At that time it looked as though we were entirely in the hands of the rulers of Russia, and we know that an agreement was made which was unjust to Poland. We know that even if that agreement had been carried out by Russia it would have been unjust. It involved the shifting of millions of people from their homelands. We agreed to it because we thought that it was the price of peace with Russia. We have found since that, so far from making any attempt to carry out that agreement, Russia has engaged in continuous expansion. The three little Baltic republics have simply been swallowed np and have reverted to the situation that they occupied under the Czars. We know that Poland is governed as a conquered people, and that its laws, rights and liberties have been subverted. Czechoslovakia has disappeared as a free country and a democratic entity. We know, too, that Hungary, Bulgaria, and virtually the greater part of what is commonly known as eastern Europe, is under the iron heel. In Asia we find that Russia is also expanding everywhere. Simultaneously with that expansion we find that in nearly every country there is a Communist party which openly desires the success of Russia. Those Communists take the “ party line “, which is always the Moscow line, and which, incidentally, changes opinion overnight.

I do not think that we should ask for positive evidence from which we can trace the instructions that come from Moscow to Communists in other countries. It is immaterial how the news is obtained. It is immaterial whether secret envoys go out from Moscow, or whether some secret method of communication is employed, or whether the Communists in other countries listen to the wireless, or simply watch the course of events. The fact is that we can rely on the members of the Communist party in all countries outside Russia to take the “ Moscow line”. The world has been split into two great factions. The only way we can meet the menace of Russian imperialism is to have a counter-alliance. That counter-alliance will fail if it is not sufficiently strong to ward off the aggressor, or to prevent the disintegration of our economy and of our national life while ordinary peaceful processes continue. Therefore, I think we are justified in saying that we must regard every Communist as an actual or potential traitor. I emphasize that I am not one of those who regard Communists as people who have necessarily bad motives. Many of them are individuals whose ideals, according to their conceptions, are very high. But as an old lawyer said, I think in the 15th century, the law can look only to the results of a man’s actions, and cannot hope to read the minds of men because even the devil himself knoweth not the mind of man. We are not concerned whether the Communists are acting from good or bad motives: we are concerned only with their acts. That is why the machinery of the bill must be viewed as a whole.

Already something has been said in this debate about the definition of a Communist in the bill. That definition has been misunderstood. I assume that the definition was drafted by a lawyer, to be interpreted by lawyers. We must always remember that the actual meaning of legislation is what the High Court says it is, and the Attorney-General and the draftsmen must always have that in mind. I am constrained to take the advice of legal experts about the interpretation of the actual words of the bill, but if I thought for one moment that what Senator McKenna suggested last night might happen would take place, namely, that a man who merely advocated the adoption of some part of the teachings of Karl Marx would be liable to be “ declared “, I would oppose the bill, and I think that every member of the Senate would do likewise. However, that is not the purpose of the bill. It has been carefully explained that before a person becomes liable to be “ declared “ he must not only be a Communist but also, in the opinion of the Executive, be engaged in some subversive activity. My definition of a Communist would include the words, “ a person who desires to overthrow our country by force or by force and fraud “. That is the essence of communism, as distinct from other socialistic doctrines. I think that we should keep that in mind througout our discussion of the bill which is aimed not at opinions, but at subversive activity. Under the bill, the Communist must be “ declared “, and in order to do so we must be able to say what Communist doctrine is. Nevertheless, we must realize that the Communist will be “ declared “, not because he holds certain opinions, but because he has participated actively in a treasonable conspiracy. It has been said that the ordinary law is enough. It might be that we could prevent Communist sub- versive activities by a very severe application of the Crimes Act or of the laws relating to treason or by resort to otherlegislation. ‘ But would that be desirable? Do we wish to treat all these people as criminals? Do wewish primarily to punish? What we really wish is to prevent their subversive activity, and I think that the billhas been very skilfully drafted for that purpose. While the menace of communism to law and order exists, and while Communist interference with our normal every day activities continues, it is unthinkable that any Communist should be permitted to hold high office in the public service. He may be in a position in which he can create grave danger, and therefore, in the interests of national defence, we are justified in removing him. I believe that the same argument applies to a trade union secretary, who is a Communist. I myself, am a member of a trade union. I wish to emphasize that, because in some of the speeches made by honorable senators opposite there is a suggestion that every honorable senator on this side of thechamber is engaged in trade and commerce or in some activity of that kind. I have been a member of the executive of the Teachers Federation, and I have helped to shape its policy, and I am still a financial member of it. The point that I make now is that we cannot allow such great bodies as the public service trade unions tobe swayed by people who are actual or potential traitors to the country. It has been said that no other country has adopted this method. That is a strange criticism from the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite were not wont, years ago, to say, “ We must not do this because it has not been done by Great Britain or Canada “. They were proud to be pioneers ; and this is pre-eminentl.y a pioneering; piece of work and one that must be done because we have a particular problem to face. I do not think that in the United States of America, Canada, or the United Kingdom there are so many key unions, necessary for defence, under the domination of Communist officials. Ours is an appalling list.

Senator Large:

– Look a little closer at it.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I shall look closely at lists prepared by Labour men. In preparing my speech on this bill, I have had close regard to what tradeunion leaders have had to say about Communist domination, and I have’ accepted their word on this matter. It is for that reason that I cite this bill as a fine piece of imaginative experimental work. There are people who say that it will fail. One cannot be sure of the success of anything, but that is not a justification for failing to make an attempt. All the academic and political criticism of this measure comes from people who are not prepared to meet this emergency. They are prepared to take some measures, but we say that none of the measures that have been taken in the past has been adequate. As to the efficacy of the bill, I say that it will do two things: It will clear the Public Service of potential and actual enemies, and it. will clear the great trade unions of such people. I do not suggest for one moment that it is a panacea. I do not believe in panaceas. No single legislative enactment can solve all our problems; but the bill will strengthen the hands of those who wish to stir up public opinion and educate our people to the dangers that exist. This bill will not relieve the State governments, the trade unions, or any of us of the responsibility to fight the Communist menace, but it will mean that the weight, force, and prestige of the Commonwealth Parliament will bc behind us and not against us.

On the question of onus of proof which was dealt with most adequately by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). I confess that I was just as concerned as honorable senators opposite were when the phrase was first thrown in our faces, hut the fact is that in the only criminal proceeding provided for in this measure the onus of proof is still on the Crown. In the other cases, all that happens is that a man is removed from a position in which he can damage the community.

Senator Ashley:

– Branded for life!

Senator McCALLUM:

– That rhetorical phrase uttered by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) is an attempt to divert attention from the real issue. If a man does foolish things which result in his being branded for life, that cannot be helped. We have no right as a national Parliament to say that we prefer the good of that one man to the good of the whole community. In moments of crisis and great national peril, we all fall back on the reserve power of the Government which must be exerted. Last night Senator Armstrong openly admitted that while a government of which he was not merely a supporter, but was a member, was in office, individuals had been treated in a way in which they should not have been treated.

Senator Armstrong:

– 7,000 of them.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Are we prepared to say that the risk of some disadvantage to an individual must not be taken even if the safety of the whole community demands it?

Other freedoms of which I am most jealous include freedom of organization and freedom of speech. This measure does not take away the freedom of organization, except from a body that is prepared to subvert the whole Constitution and the whole basis of our civilization. That is necessary to protect all other forms of association. This bill does not take away the right of freedom of speech, except from people who are using their speech to subvert the institutions of the community. These things are merely incidental. It is action, not thought and speech, that we are striking at. I shall deal with some specific objections that were raised last night by Senator McKenna and Senator Armstrong. I really must express my astonishment at hearing Senator McKenna, who is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and other honorable senators, say that they are supporting a bill while, at the same time, they give no indication throughout the whole of their speeches that they have a good word for it. Anybody walking into this chamber while those honorable senators were speaking would have been quite sure that they were opposing the bill, and intended to vote against it. That is a fair inference to draw from the speeches of those honorable senators

Senator Fraser:

– That is not correct.

Senator McCALLUM:

– The inference that I was compelled to draw from the speeches of those two honorable senators was that they were opposed to the bill, and were merely supporting it for opportunist reasons.

Senator O’Byrne:

– We do not think that the end justifies the means.

Senator McCALLUM:

– If ever there was a pernicious doctrine preached it is the doctrine that the end justifies the means.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I did not say that. The honorable senator is distorting my words.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I am not distorting the honorable senator’9 words. All I heard was the phrase “ The end justifies the means “, and all I did was to reflect on that doctrine. I am not interested in who supports it. I am only interested in stating to the Senate that the doctrine is pernicious^

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I rise to order. I submit that my words have been distorted, and I should like to make a personal explanation. What I said was that I did not think that the end justified the means.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator made his remark by way of interjection, and as all interjections are disorderly, I cannot permit him to make a personal explanation.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Another matter that Senator McKenna referred to was the method by which a person is to be declared. He said that a declaration would be made by the Executive (Council, and that the Executive Council, for such purposes, could consist of the Governor-General and two Ministers. I am not attacking that statement. My point is that the process of declaring a person would not be embarked upon lightly or without due regard to the interests of that individual. I take it that the two Ministers would approach their task with a full sense of its gravity. Their action would have prior Cabinet approval. Cabinet would not agree to anybody being named unless it were convinced of the necessity for such action. There is another point that I consider to be relevant. It concerns the office of the Governor-General. I have no wish to reflect upon that office, or upon any one who has held it, but I believe that we should understand clearly what the function of the Governor-General is. As I understand the practice, the GovernorGeneral does not lightly or automatically give his consent to every document that is placed before him. My knowledge of what ‘happens is, so far, text-book knowledge, because I have not been a Minister, but I understand that the GovernorGeneral has the right to question his Ministers. He has a right to warn his Ministers.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Has that ever been done?

Senator McCALLUM:

– I know of a Governor-General who has done it. There have been cases in which the GovernorGeneral has quite rightly sent documents back to the executive for further consideration. That, I believe, is an element which anybody who is trying to assess the working of this bill should take into consideration. We must regard the members of our Executive Government as honorable men. This Commonwealth, throughout its 50 years of history, has never had a ministry that has not had a high sense of its responsibility. There may have been an individual here or there who fell below standard, but the standard of Prime Ministers and Ministers generally has been .extraordinarily high. Whatever party may be in office we must expect its Ministers to approach this very serious task with due gravity. I fully apprehend the danger of bureaucracy, and the danger in what we call the security police force. We must constantly guard against these dangers, but it is not wise to refuse an adequate remedy because there is an element of danger in it. The great social and political evil of communism cannot be cured by .a soap-and-sugar plaster. It requires a surgical operation, and when a person undergoes a surgical operation he knows that there are dangers, and he provides against them. The safeguards against the undue use of power by the executive or the security service are an able, honorable, and vigilant Cabinet, and an able, honorable, and vigilant Parliament. Every one of us can be active in ensuring that these very necessary duties are carried out in the manner intended. I was astonished at Senator Armstrong’s revelation of what happened when, the Ministry of which he was a member occupied the treasury bench. I am certain that nothing of that kind will happen under this hill. If I thought that there were security officers who acted in the irresponsible manner mentioned by Senator Armstrong I should not rest until they had been dismissed, and their places taken by more honest men.

Senator Grant:

– What about the men who gave the list of names to the Prime Minister? Would the honorable senator dismiss them?

Senator Gorton:

– The names were correct.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I am addressing myself to the serious purposes of the bill, and not to the frivolous details that honorable senators opposite are trying to bring into the discussion. An Opposition speaker quoted John Stuart Mill. I should like that speaker to reflect upon the difference between the conditions that existed when Mill wrote his great work and present-day conditions. At that time-

Opposition senators interjecting,

Senator McCALLUM:

Mr. President, I seriously believe that I should be permitted to finish a sentence without the noisy interference of honorable senators opposite. I am not replying to interjections, or taking any notice of them. I am addressing myself to you ; yet, when I begin a sentence, I always hear a noise - not an articulate sound, but a noise intended to distract me from the thread of my argument. John Stuart Mill wrote under peculiar conditions which do not exist to-day. He could assume for the purpose of his argument that the British Empire would never be broken up. It was absolutely safe from domestic or foreign enemies. In Victorian days an orator could safely be allowed to get up in Hyde Park and preach any subversive doctrine while Queen Victoria was driving by in solemn state. The British were so strong and free that they could do that, but dare we do it to-day?

The man who says that this nation is in such a condition of safety that the cells of traitors can be disregarded is not showing a proper sense of responsibility towards his country. I believe in. the doctrines of Mill. I believe in some of his doctrines that are always attacked from the other side of this chamber, but I do not believe that enemies can be dealt with in drawing-room fashion in the hurricane season when houses are crashing down and a tempest is raging over the whole world. That could be done in the Victorian era. We read with delight the leisured debates in the parliament of that time and recall the tremendous enthusiasm for causes that seem to us very slight now.

It was a marvellous period, but it has gone and those who cannot support this bill have laid on them a duty to put before the Parliament some better method of dealing with the trouble. I say that particularly to the academic critics. I do not sneer at them. The places where doctrines can be discussed are the foundation of any civilization, and I can understand that a man who is concerned with political philosophy is prepared to take great risks, but those men are talking on the top of a volcano. They are quite safe for the moment, and can stand in their classrooms and talk in little groups, but I say to them that if they cannot support this measure it is their duty to help us to devise another one. The great apostle of free speech, John Milton, spoke of the passive good man in these words -

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and seeks her adversary but slinks out of the contest where that immortal garland is to bc run for, not without dust and heat.

The Government is attempting to fashion an instrument to protect this Commonwealth and is trying at the same time to protect the rights of everybody, but it will not be diverted from its task by rhetoric. It will not be deterred either by the story that it proposes branding men for life when it rules that Communists shall not remain in the public service to sabotage defence plans or use great trade unions for purposes of war. Who can deny that Communist agitation is one of the most potent causes of strikes that do no good to the men, that remedy no grievances and have no effect except to make this country less fit for peace and for war ?

I shall conclude by mentioning one matter to which Senator Armstrong referred last night. He quoted a passage from the Spectator, but gave a wrong idea of what that journal intended. It is a London weekly and one that should be read by everybody who wants to understand foreign affairs. It is not conservative in the sense that it always agrees with the conservative government and publishes articles representing all shades of opinion. The passage in the Spectator that Senator Armstrong read was -

Tim best answer to communism will remain not a legal barrier but a population determined not to be exploited and du pod.

I agree with Senator Armstrong in that, and I think that all honorable senators do ; but I .’hall quote the opening of that passage, which appeared in the Spectator on the 5th May, 1950. and was headed “Australia draws the Line”. It read -

Australia, for so long a great laboratory of enonomic ami social, experiment, is now preparing to extend its pioneering activities into the field of politics with a Bill to dissolve the Communist party, prevent its re-emergence under another name, and disqualify declared Communists from employment under the Commonwealth. That is probably the most difficult and dangerous experiment so far, but the Australian Government has the right to make il.

The reft of the article gave the reason for believing that the Australian Government had the right to make the attempt. When the bill goes into the committee I hope that it will be approached by all in the mood of men who are prepared to rid their country of a great menace. Although honorable senators on this side believe that the amendments po far accented remedy all serious objections to the bill I think that the Minister in charge of the bill and the Pr;me Minister will listen very sympathetically to any proposal which suggests an improvement that does not strike at the purpose of the bi 11. The Government could have fulfilled its pledge to the letter by merely banning and dissolving the Australian Communist party a”d not taking the means to make it effective. Members of the Government could then have gone back to their constituents and said, “ We are wonderful fellows. We have done what we promised “. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are not concerned with lip service. We wish to fulfil that pledge by giving legislative effect to it. In addition, we must do all the other things necessary to destry this menace to our national life. I commend the bill.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators have listened to a speech by Senator McCallum in which he introduced Milton and John Stuart Mill and other names famous in English literature. Honorable senators were told that in the days of laisser faire the things advocated by John Stuart Mill could be said, but that conditions are different to-day. I propose first to read a paragraph of a statement made in 1939 when World War II. broke out, as follows : -

T do not seek however long the conflict may last a muzzled opposition. Our institutions of free speech and free criticism must go on. It would bc a tragedy if we found that we had fought for freedom and free belief and the value of every individual soul and won the war but lost the things that wc were fighting for.

The speaker was not John Stuart Mill but another gentleman of Scottish descent, Robert Gordon Menzies. Senator McCallum made a good contribution as far as it went and he admitted that this was an experimental proposition just as honorable senators on this side of the chamber have claimed. The Australian people are to be guinea pigs. Honorable senators are told that there are some very humane people in charge of the country’s affairs. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) is shown to honorable senators as ti demure, gentle fellow, who would give everybody a fair <ro. It has ever b?en thus. Madame Roland, at the t:me of the French Revolution, was taken to the guillotine for allegedly fighting against liberty. And as she was taken to the guillotine she said -

Oh liberty! What crimes arc committed in thy name.

I believe that Robespierre was a gentle fellow and anybody who is conversant with the story of the French Revolution will know that he was a man who was imbued with one main purpose which was to fight for liberty as he understood it and against those men who were disloyal. Himmler was also a very gentle fellow. I remember Sir John

Peden, who was President of the Legislative Council in New South Wales, telling me once that he had talked to Himmler. He said that Himmler and his wife lived in an unpretentious flat and that Himmler was so gentle that butter would not melt in his mouth.

I believe that the head of the inquisition, Torquemada, was a gentle fellow. Yet he cried, “Burn the heretics and God will know His own “, and he really ‘believed it. He was a man of unassailable character, and so was John Calvin, who also did a little bit of burning on the side. I want to mention both sides to prove that I am not sectarian.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has said in another place that Australia is practically in a state of war. “When he made that speech the right honorable gentleman was applauded by a wide audience, but when the facade was taken away it only made obvious the fact that the Prime Minister knew nothing about communism. I would not be surprised if some of the definitions in this bill were written by the right honorable gentleman or the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth). Can any one show me a more stupid definition of a. Communist than that given in the bill which defines a Communist as a person who subscribes to the teachings of Marx and Lenin?

Senator Spooner:

– Can the honorable senator give the Senate his definition?

Senator GRANT:

– I am not the Government. The onus is on it to give the definition. According to the Prime Minister, this country is only technically at peace. A leading American has said that he does not see any sign of war. General Mac Arthur has said that Russia is getting what it wants without war, and that it is not looking for conflict. President Truman has said that he can- not see any immediate danger of war. I remind honorable senators that there is not one Liberal newspaper in the world that backs this bill, and I name specifically the Manchester Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times. There is not one liberal man in the, John Morley sense in the world who supports the bill. I challenge the Government to name any Liberal newspaper which backs this measure. Even the Prime Minister of Canada, one of the most conservative men known to me has said that he is not in favour of gaoling people because they think something, unless they say something or do something as a result of which harm is done, and then he will act

[US]

against them. When Mr. Attlee was asked whether he was in favour of banning the Communist party, he said “ No “.

Senator Spicer:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of it?

Senator GRANT:

– I am not afraid to answer the question. The Government has a mandate to ban the Communist party, and this bill is the Government’s baby, not ours. It is a foolish bill. Not one honorable senator opposite has ever been a member of a trade union. Ministers have no idea how this legislation is to be put into operation. Even in South Africa, where there are 8,000,000 natives, and about 300,000 Indians, where there is a constant struggle between the Dutch and the British, and where hundreds have been killed in native riots, they have referred the clause about the onus of proof to a select committee. The Labour Government in England has done more to beat the Communists than has any other government in the world. One thing that was done in England had in it more wisdom that could be found in a thousand stupid bills like this. About a year ago, a German Communist named Eisler absconded from bail in the United States of America, He was arrested in England, and the Government of the United States of America demanded his extradition. I remember reading in the Daily Worker, the Communist paper in London, that the extradition proceedings would be a farce. England, it was stated, was only an aircraft carrier for the United States of America, which would tell the British Government what to do, and Eisler would be extradited. There was no such thing as justice under capitalism, the paper said. The escapee appeared before a magistrate in the Bow-street Court, , and was remanded for 24 hours. Next day, the magistrate said, “ I find that you have violated no law of England under which I can order your extradition “. When the Communist was released, he said, “I never imagined there was such justice in the world “. What happened then ? AntiCommunists took advantage of the occasion to ask, “ Would you get such treatment in Russia ? “ Does any one suppose that if the Russians had been seeking the extradition of a political prisoner from Bulgaria, it would have been refused? The action of the British magistrate cut tho ground from, under the feet of the Communists. That is what happened in England only the other day, not something that happened in the time of John Stuart Mill.

Why did the Communist party get so few votes in the last British election 1 It was because the British Labour Government improved the conditions that had previously fostered communism. When the Labour Government took office in Great Britain, the coal mines were in a terrible state. The Government nationalized the mines, and the Liberal Party voted with it on that issue. Before the last election, the Communist member for East Fyfe, a mining constituency, was Mr. Gallagher, a man with a sardonic, Scottish humour. I heard him speak when I was abroad. He had a better constituency than before, because some militant mining districts had been added to it. Nevertheless, the Labour candidate won by a five to two majority. Four and a half years ago, Harry Pollitt, another Communist, won the Rhonda Valley constituency, which is a mining area, with 13,000 votes. At the last election, he received fewer than 4,000 votes. Those successes against Communist candidates were not achieved by stupid tactics such as those of the present Government in bringing in a bill of this kind.

Senator Maher:

– The British people are waking up to the Russian menace.

Senator GRANT:

– I have fought the Communists for the last fifteen years, and to-day the Communists in Australia are weaker than ever before. The Australian Labour party section of the miners’ federation would have control to-day but for the fact that one of those whom we thought we could rely on went over to the other side. In the elections for office in the Boilermakers Union last week, all the Communists were cleaned out except Grant, and he would have been defeated had not some of the votes arrived too late to be counted.

Senator Gorton:

– Who conducted the ballot?

Senator GRANT:

– That ballot waa ordered in response to a protest against a previous ballot. A Labour government sponsored legislation permitting mem bers of a union who were dissatisfied with a ballot to take action to have another -ballot held. All the indications are that Thornton will be defeated when the election of officers in the Ironworkers Federation takes place. The Communists have attained office in some of the unions because they aTe capable men, and full of energy. They have been prepared to do the jobs that should have been done by some of those who condemn them.

The minds of the people have been so agitated that they do not know what they want, and they gave the Government a mandate for this legislation. Actually, the bill has been introduced to distract the attention of the people from the fact that the cost of living has increased more during the last five months than during the previous nin© months. I challenge any honorable senator opposite, particularly Senator McCallum, to explain how this legislation will operate. Government spokesmen claim that, once the bill becomes law, the Communist party will be finished. It is very easy to say that. Let us suppose that Healy, the secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, is dismissed, as he will be if this bill is passed. What will happen if he takes a job on the wharf, and advocates that wharf labourers should put fewer bags into the sling? He would be entitled to do that Even after he was declared, he could take a job anywhere except in a government instrumentality. He could be employed in an electricity undertaking, in gas works, on the railways or in a chemical laboratory. Let us assume, however, that he stays wath the Waterside Workers Federation. He could nominate any one he liked, and that person could be elected to office in the federation, provided that he had not been a member of the Communist party during the period specified in the act. Is it suggested that such a person, if elected, should be sacked ? Does the Government propose to take charge of ballots? The Right Honorable R. G. Casey, who is now Minister for National Development, was on the coal-fields during the strike, although he was a very long way from the mines. Indeed, it would have been difficult to see him through a telescope. A friend of mine said to me: “Mr. Casey is here. He is perturbed about the control of ballots. “What do you think about it? “ I said that it would be quite impracticable for the ‘Government to control ballots of coal-miners, and he asked me why I held that view. I replied that, in the first place, ballots conducted by the miners’ federation were beyond reproach. It was impossible that they could be crooked. The miners vote in lodges, and the ballots are supervised by scrutineers. Every one knows whether it is Jack Jones or Bill Shaw who votes. However, let us assume that Senator Sheehan here is appointed to take charge of a ballot of members of the Aberdare Lodge on a certain date. If the officials of the lodge declare the ballot black, not one member of the miners’ federation will vote. “What would the Government do then ? Whoever was responsible for drawing up this bill obviously knew nothing about conditions in the trade unions. If I thought this legislation would stop Stalinism, I would vote for it, but it will have no such effect. As a matter of fact, Stalinism is entirely different from Marxism, but the bill makes no reference to Stalinism. Senator McCallum said that the Russians were condemning in other countries an imperialism of which they themselves were guilty. That is time, but I point out that the Government has sought to introduce something of the same spirit into this legislation.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– honorAble senator will vote against it?

Senator GRANT:

– If I said that two and two were four, and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) asked me if I were a Chinaman, that would not make it six. Some people think that a -person who belongs to the Nationalist, or the United Australia party, or the Liberal party, or whatever it happens to be called at the moment, must be at least reasonably well educated, and have a logical mind. As far as I can see, honora bie senators opposite are zoological rather than logical. Is our faith in democracy so weak that we must endanger the liberties of thousands in order to get at one or two who do not know what liberty is?

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is not our idea. Is it the idea of the honorable senator ?

Senator GRANT:

– It is not an idea, it is a fact. Under this legislation, any person who is a member of an organization that is influenced by Leninism or Marxism, may be declared. He can be accused in his absence, and action can be taken against him. I do not think that Thornton would deny that he is a Communist. Nor would Healy or Roach. I heard the present Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) say that this Ls a bill to get rid of the Communists in the leading trade unions. If that be the objective, why are the provisions regarding the onus of proof required? Jim Healy will not deny that he is a Communist. The Government, under the pretext of getting at the Communists, wants to get at every militant in the trade unions. If it believes that it can do so by this means, it is making a great mistake. If this bill is passed in its present form, thousands of trade unionists who have never voted for militant trade union officials will do so. When deputations from trade unions have waited upon me, I have been able to pick out the Stalinites. I have said to them, “ You should have no kick at all against this bill. You do not believe in free speech or the rights of minorities. In Russia, they are in the cemetery “. One boy said to me, “Donald, I am not a Communist; I am a Catholic. I have never voted for Healy in my life, but I have a wife and three children, and I know that conditions on the waterfront now are better than ever before. Healy helped us to get them. If Healy is put out, I shall vote for anybody that he suggests “.

In this bill, the Government is making the same mistake as that which it is making in international affairs. It thinks that, internationally, it can fight the Stalinites and all the social democrats. In this country, it thinks it can fight the Stalinites. the Labour party, the moderate trade unionists and all liberal-minded people. If it goes on with this bill, its last position will be worse than its first. In the Bible there is the story of a man who tried to rid his house of a devil, but the result was that a hundred devils took its place. That is, in effect, what will happen in this country if this bill is passed.

According to the definitions clause, a Communist is a person who believes in the teachings of Marx and Lenin. I am definitely of the opinion that it will not be possible to declare a Stalinite under this measure. Marxism and Leninism are not the same. Lenin tried to modify the theory of Marx so that it would be applicable to Russian conditions. He was responsible for the introduction of what is called the N.E.P., or the new economic policy. There have been many interpreters of Marx; Lenin was one of them. Marx said that socialism could not succeed in one country unless it was quickly followed by the introduction of socialism in other highly industrialized countries. Lenin realized that, and said, “We shall’ take one step back and two steps forward “. Since then the Russians have got away from Marx altogether. The Stalinites are not interested in him. I am not an authority on Karl Marx, because he is too profound for me. If he were alive to-day, would he agree with socialism in one country? Trotsky interpreted Marx as meaning that there could not be socialism in one country only. A fued developed and Trotsky was eliminated. The Stalinites are not interested in world revolution. If the Government thinks that by making provision for the declaration of people who advocate revolution or the overthrow of capitalism by force it will catch the Stalinites, it is making a bad mistake. They are not doing anything like that now. They are part and parcel of a plan to undermine British or American imperialism in order to assist Russian imperialism. That is what they are doing now. If Marx were alive to-day, would he agree to Russia demanding from Germany £2,000,000,000 in indemnities? If he were alive now, he would say to the Stalinites, “ What are you doing in Austria? Why do you not get out of it ? “ Would he agree with the absorption by Russia of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? Would he agree with the Stalin-Hitler pact under which Hitler said, in effect, “ Here is Poland, with 30,000,000 people. This is a line. All that part of Poland on one side of the line belongs to you, Joe, and the part on. the other side of it belongs to me, Adolf”? That was imperialism of the worst type. There is no Marxism inside

Russia itself. The Russian who does the hardest work gets the lowest wages. In the Russian army there is greater disparity between the rates of pay of a field-marshal and a private than there is in the American army.

I should like some honorable senators opposite to tell me how this bill will operate, but they do not know. They are praying that, when it is passed, everything will be all right. According to the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) the Communists or Marxists and the members of the Australian Labour party are Siamese twins. Mr. Treatt, the leader of the Liberal party in the New South Wales Parliament, speaking last night, said -

The sole object of our opponents- that is the Labour party, or, as he has referred to it, the so-called Labour party - is the Marxian objective of total socialism.

According to those gentlemen, we are followers of Marx and Lenin. Why does not the Government say directly, “ You support Marx, and we are going to declare you too “ ? Why be hypocritical about it? I have attended meetings at which the present Minister for Defence (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) said that Communists and members of the Labour party were twin brothers, and that they would conscript labour and force people to work at the point of the bayonet. That is how the present Government parties were elected, and they should not run away from it. Let the Government say what it means to do. Let it tell us what it means by “ Marx and Lenin “. Under this bill, Frenchmen such as Thoreau, St. Germain and even M. Auriol, the present French President, could be declared, as could the members of the Labour party in Great Britain, because they subscribe to the doctrines of Marx and Lenin.

Senator Spicer:

– Nonsense !

Senator GRANT:

– Every member of the Labour party in Great Britain says that he is a socialist. I am not afraid to say that I am a socialist, and I have said so for 30 years.

Senator Maher:

– The honorable senator is not a revolutionary.

Senator GRANT:

Senator Maher does not know what a revolution is. A revolution is something that goes round until it reaches the place at which it started. He does not move at all. He stays in the same place. Honorable senatorstalk of hypocrisy, but they remind me of an old Scotsman whom I used to know. He was what would be called a “ wowser “ in Australia. He would say, “ Say your prayers, Jimmy, put the sand in the sugar, the water in the milk, and go to bed “. Even the Melbourne Age, the Melbourne Argus, the Sydney Daily Mirror - which nobody could accuse of supporting the Labour party in season and out of season - and the New Statesman are opposed to some of the provisions of this bill. One member of the UnAmerican Activities Committee in the United States of America, a most rabid tory, is reported to have said -

The Australian bill is too extreme for us. It would be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Senator McCallum told us that everything in the garden will be lovely. A similar statement was made about the un-American Activities Committee, but what has happened to the unfortunate American professor who was accused by a renegade of being a Communist? Even now his character has not been cleared, although he has called James Byrnes, an ex-Minister, General Marshall and Cordell Hull to say that he is a loyal American. A man named Budenz, a renegade who has changed his religion and his politics - I do not think that any of us have any time for people of that kind - accused this eminent scientist of being a Communist. What happened to his wife and children? The same thing is going to happen here. Senator McCallum has referred to it as an experiment. I gathered from his remarks that when he was employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission he himself was almost experimented upon. I did not hear him express any radical views then, but I listened to him announcing the results of a general election approximately six years ago. He told us at midnight that the result was a draw, although Labour was, in fact, about 3 miles ahead. I do not know whether the honorable senator said that he was actually accused of being a Communist, but he implied that he was such an anti-fascist that he might have been accused of being a Communist.

Senator McCallum:

– I was accused of being a Communist.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator must look out for himself if this bill is passed.

I have nothing against the AttorneyGeneral, who is, I think, quite a fine fellow. I do not know why the Government has inflicted this bill upon him. When it is passed, he will have to carry his burden like Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress. The bill is childish in the extreme. It was devised by people who did not have the slightest idea of what they were trying to put into operation. I know that in democracies it is an unfortunate fact that elections are won by psychology, not by logic. If a political party said that, if returned, it would ban the Communist party, it is probable that not one in 50 persons would ask how it proposed to do so, and not one in 300 would say, “ Let us analyse the proposals to see whether or not they are likely to be successful “. The great majority of the people would say, “ Get on with it; it will be all right “. If the Government had set out to devise a bill to strengthen the Communist party or the Stalinist ideology, it could not possibly have chosen a better instrument for that purpose than this measure. It will give the Stalinites a new lease of life. Those who know anything about fighting Stalinites realize that the first thing to do is to isolate them, but, by including in this measure the provisions that relate to the onus of proof, the Government has caused hundreds of thousands of people to support the Communist party, indirectly, because they do not agree with those provisions. I am sure that Senator McCallum will not object if I repeat a conversation that I had with him the other day. We were talking of university professors who had said that they were opposed to the onus-of-proof provisions, and he said quite casually, “ I did not see John Anderson’s name there “. It has appeared since then. If anybody knows anything about the Stalinists, it is John Anderson, because he was closely associated with them. The Haldane Society was established to honour Lord Haldane, who possessed one of the greatest minds of this century. When I was aboy, he introduced a bill designed to establish the Territorial

Army. He spoke for eight and three.quarter hours and then said, “Having made those introductory remarks, I shall now come to the bill”. The Haldane Society, which consists of eminent lawyers who support the law and other sections of the community, including Stalinites and Communists, must consider the onus of proof provision in this measure iniquitous. I venture to suggest that because of the stupid manner in which this bill has been framed, the Communist sympathizers in the community will be increased twentyfold. Surely the Government does not seriously consider that the framers of this legislation - in its original state - are deserving of the confidence of the Opposition? I remind honorable senators that the bill as originally framed empowered peace officers to break into the homes of citizens without a warrant. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) moved the second reading of the bill in the House of Representatives he specifically mentioned 53 people by name, alleging that they were Communists. There is no doubt that the right honorable gentleman, prior to delivering his second-reading speech on the measure, said to the head of the security service, in effect, “ I want the names of people who, without doubt, are Communists. I want you to comb and re-comb them so that there will be no mistake, because I intend to mention them in my speech on the proposed legislation. If you are at all doubtful about whether a man is a Communist, do not include his name, because that would be playing into the hands of the Labour party, and it would prove to the people that innocent people could be proclaimed “. Following the broadcast of the Prime Minister’s second-reading speech a man in Western Australia, who had repudiated Stalinism ten years ago, wrote to the press stating that he had left the Communist party following Hitler’s exposition of its principles. Another four of the 53 persons named by the Prime Minister were wrongly designated Communists. In other words, almost 10 per cent, of those persons could he wrongly declared under this measure. I am well acquainted with Communist tactics. First, they are interested in Stalinism, and secondly, in trade unionism. I seriously ask the Government what right it has to insist that a man should prove a negative.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Does not the Australian Labour party executive do that?

Senator GRANT:

– It is clear that the Minister for Trade and Customs, who has just interjected, knows very little about Communist ideology. He is afraid of this measure. The very fact that he asks, in effect, “What did the other fellow do? “ proves my assertion. I have listened to a portion of the debate on this measure in another place and I did not hear a clear explanation of what Marxism and Leninism really is. I am game to bet–

Senator Large:

– Do not let Mr. Speaker know about it.

Senator GRANT:

Mr. Speaker in the House of Representatives knows that I was born in Scotland and that therefore there would be nothing in it. I repeat that not one supporter of the Government has shown that he has a clear conception of the meaning of Marxism and Leninism.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator should read the preamble to the bill.

Senator GRANT:

– The preamble subscribes to the teachings of Marx and Lenin. According to those teachings, every one is entitled to free education. I point out that under the provisions of this bill all members of the Parliament could be declared. In reply to the question that was asked of me about how I should vote on this measure, I contend that the bill should be recalled and re-drafted, so that I would know first what it is about. I make that suggestion in all sincerity. The onus of proof clause is contrary to everything that we have been taught. As Senator McKenna remarked during his address last evening, we are inviting people to come herefrom overseas, declaring that Australia is a land of opportunity where British justice prevails. Yet, under this measure, a person will be guilty until he can prove his innocence. Why should we disturb a principle of British justice that has stood for 700 years? If this measure becomes law people will be forced to sit in corners and talk in whispers lest the Attorney-General should be informed that they were Communists. We all know that following the commission of a major crime marietta’s are received by the police suggesting that the criminal may be so-and-so. According to those letters, the crime could have been committed by perhaps any one of twenty men.

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– But they arc not hanged.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not know whether the honorable senator who has just interjected considers a depression inevitable, but if it is, following the introduction of this legislation, many informers will be- looking for jobs. Several nights ago a business man in a big way said to me, “Mr. Chifley and Mr. Calwell are Communists. “When I replied that they were not, he said to me, “ You are a Communist also “. If this measure were in fact law, and that conversation was overheard I could be declared. That is a serious state of affairs. Discussions on communism ..are taking place in every part of the world to-day. It is a great social and political problem, which has been discussed recently, not only in many homes, but also in universities and churches. If the provisions contemplated in this measure became law, and a person were to write a letter expressing the hope that if another war materialized the Russians would beat the Americans, despite the fact that he was a man of repute and did not perhaps have a true conception of communism, he could be declared. If he happened to be a public servant he could be sacked. It is difficult to understand the Government’s approach to this matter. I stress that a cardinal principle of British justice that a man is innocent until proved guilty has stood for about 700 years. “Why should it be set aside? I have heard many people oppose the doctrines of communism and Stalinism because they .curb personal liberty. I contend that if the introduction of this measure is an illustration of democracy at work, democracy is finished. If, for example, Mr. Healy, a well-known person, were to make a statement not in keeping with the British tradition, existing laws enable action to be taken against him. The Government would be better occupied endeavouring to restore value to the pound, because if this measure becomes law, conditions will be chaotic throughout the country. “When Senator Scott was addressing the chamber I remarked to my colleague, Senator Sheehan, “ Although he is a very decent fellow, he has not the slightest conception of what he is talking about”. Obviously he was still back in the days of the anti-Combination Laws, early in the nineteenth century. Honorable senators will recall the plight of the Tolpuddle martyrs who were transported from England to Australia for periods of from seven years to life, for supporting the principle of trade unionism. That was a fight between autocracy and democracy. Although the Government has referred to the hypocrisy of the Opposition, I claim that in a Labour democracy control of trade unions and other organizations can be taken from the Stalinites. Does the Government seriously contend that the onus of proof provision is compatible with democracy ?

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The Labour party would not put it into operation.

Senator GRANT:

– I am commenting about the provisions in this measure. Two wrongs can never make a right. Although I am not discussing what the Labour party did, I point out that it did not do things of this kind on the scale contemplated in this measure. I really believe that the Attorney-General imagines that the Government will receive only about one allegation every three weeks that some individual is a Communist. He ought to open his mind to what will actually take place, which is, that so many allegations will be made that people will be “ declared “ in thousands. Every one who has a vendetta against some other member of the community will seize upon the opportunity to denounce his enemy. The same arguments that have been advanced in support of this bill have been urged in favour of every other act of oppression that has ever been introduced in any country. We must remember that every tyrannous measure that has ever been enacted has been introduced in the guise of protecting the liberty of the community. We do not, of course, expect the present Government to come out into the open and say : “ This bill will discipline the trade unions by removing all militants from the unions The fact remains, however, that it has been introduced in order to fight the trade unions, and it represents the price paid by the present Government to the vested interests for their support during the last election campaign. I appeal to the Government and to all honorable senators to consider this matter gravely. Where are we going? Is there any precedent for action such as this? Why was it not necessary for the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of Canada to introduce such a measure. When the Government decided to introduce this bill it acted upon a false hypothesis. It assumed that we were practically at war. Of course, we are not at war, or nearly at war. The Government has built its whole case on a delusion. The Prime Minister, who instigated this measure, had to employ all his great oratory in order to justify his action. But I remind honorable senators that orators are usually superficial people. There are not many examples in history of great orators who were scholars or philosophers. The Prime Minister persuaded his party that they must outlaw the Communists-

Senator Maher:

– We outlawed them before, so that the idea is not new.

Senator GRANT:

– The fact remains that although the Communist party was outlawed shortly after the outbreak of the recent war, it was stronger after that war than it has ever been. Do honorable senators opposite think that those Communists who have been trained in the Stalin school for years do not know more than they do? Do they not think that the Communists will join the Labour party and say that they are not Communists ? Why, the Prime Minister himself pointed out that they might even join the Presbyterian Church. Imagine the folly of the present Government, which comes before us and says hopefully : “ There are the Communists, and here is the bill that will put an end to them “. The elimination of subversive elements is a consideration that has dominated the minds of every democracy in the world, and I remind honorable senators that the Communist party has never come to power in any country except over the dead body of the Labour movement. Communism and the Labour movement cannot exist side by side; one or the other has to be exterminated. I said on the coal-fields last year, and I repeat now, that I know what we are up against. The Communists were able to seize power in Europe either because the economic conditions in the countries which they subjugated were chaotic, or because the Red Army was able to squeeze all democratic resistance out of those countries. Now let us consider what happened in those countries which enjoyed some degree of social justice and in which the people had the good sense to oppose communism effectively. Take Norway as an example. After the recent war there were fourteen Communist members of the Parliament of that country. The Government of Norway did not introduce a bill to outlaw the Communists. The freedom-lovers of that country girded their” loins, put on their armour, and within three years not one Communist had a seat in their Parliament. In Denmark, Holland and the United Kingdom the Communists have also been worsted. Yet in Australia the Government comes along with this proposition to outlaw and proscribe any one who holds radical views. As one who has been in Australia practically all his life and has done his little bit to fight for liberty, I am sorry that I have lived to see the day when, in the name of British justice, an oppressive measure of this nature has been introduced. I am even more sorry that such a measure should have been introduced in Australia, of all countries, with its democratic tradition extending from the people who fought for freedom at Eureka. I am sorry that I have lived to see the day when this democracy of ours, with all its faults, has been so weak, so bankrupt and impotent, that, because it cannot handle a handful of Communists, it has to endanger the liberties of all the decent Britishers who believe in freedom.

I say now to the Government that it must choose whether it will persist with this bill. I say that the bill will be a failure. Its provisions have not been properly considered, and members of the Government have no idea - not the least idea - of what it will entail. In the first place, the measure is unnecessary. The only -way in which the Communist party can be fought, and fought to a finish, is in the trade unions. This is a matter primarily for the trade unions to settle. If and when the bill is passed by the Parliament, the fight will just be beginning. If we want to get rid of the subversive element in our midst we must demonstrate that we can give the ordinary people real economic and personal liberty, and that we can offer them more than Stalinism has to offer. In conclusion, 1 ask the Government to discard the whole measure, to take back this shandy g:iff. lt has no sense; and it cannot be put into operation. I ask the Government to reconsider the whole matter, to adjourn the debate, and to recall the Senate in a fortnight in order to submit to honorable senators some alternative measure which will, at least, be intelligible, even if it is not practicable.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I support the bill because I believe that it is a measure to carry out the mandate that was given to us by the people at the last election. I commence my remarks by saying that one of the most disturbing features of the debate that has taken place in this chamber and in the House of Representatives is the way in which the main issue has been side-tracked. Matters of mere detail have been emphasized to such a degree that the public mind is beginning to think more of the details than of the ba.sic principles of the bill itself. “We must get back to the first principles of the bill. “What does the bill propose to do? Shortly, it proposes to disband the Communist party. “We shall all be very glad to see them go.

Senator Grant:

– Go where?

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is time that they were disbanded. In reply to Senator Grant’s interjection, I say that it is only because of the weakness of the previous Government that the Communists were not banned years ago. The present Government was given a clear and definite mandate by the people of the country to ban communism, and the bill merely gives effect to the public will. I say that any attempt on the part of the Opposition in the Senate, or in the House of Representatives, no matter how it is glossed over, to defer the bill or to defeat it, is simply an attempt to defeat the public will of the country. Furthermore, after listening to the speeches made by some Labour members of the Parliament, I say that not only are they attempting to defeat the public will, but that they are also running counter to the declared policy of its controlling organizations in almost all States. In fact, they are endeavouring to face both ways at once. First of all, they face in one direction, and say, in effect, “ The Communist party must be banned “. Then, facing in the other direction, they say, “ It is all right, comrades, we shall put up a show of supporting the bill in order to placate our right wing members, but we shall pick on a point as though we were defending the rights of the ordinary man, and in doing so we shall protect you even to the point of a dissolution of this Parliament “. By adopting such tactics the Opposition is giving only lipservice to the sane, level-headed, loyal unionists, while at the same time protecting those who are opposed to the measure. In the popular vernacular, some of them are endeavouring to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. As supporters of the Government, we on this side of the chamber have a clear and decisive mandate from the people to ban the Communists, and that is the reason for the introduction of this legislation. The hill proposes to implement that mandate, and the sooner the measure is placed on the statute-book the sooner the virulent cancer which is afflicting the economic and sociological life of the country will be excised. Senator Grant referred to the women of Australia. I say that the women of this country have suffered very seriously indeed because of communism and Communistinspired activity.

Senator Grant:

– “When I referred t< Australian women, I was referring in the broad sense to all the men and women of the country.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN.I thank the honorable senator for his explanation. I was saying ‘ that the people of this country, particularly the women, have every reason to feel bitter about, the failure of both the national and the State governments to deal with the

Communist menace. That matter can be dealt with now by firmness and courage. “We have noticed that in causing trouble the methods adopted by the Communists follow a discernible pattern. I shall set out the five outstanding features of that pattern as- they appear to me. First, they seek to discover some cause for widespread public discontent that will appeal to public sympathy. Secondly, having seized on some pretext, they pose as reformers who desire to remove the cause of the discontent. The next discernible feature of their conduct is that the remedy they propose is always one that involves violent measures, which are calculated to attract as much publicity as possible to themselves and their doctrine. Finally, they go one further, and make a show of force. However, when faced with strong opposition they withdraw, leaving their deluded followers to take the consequences. I shall illustrate that pattern by reminding honorable senators of an incident that occurred in Brisbane shortly after the war. At that time there was an acute shortage of houses, which, I regret to say, still exists. That shortage provided an opportunity on which the Communists seized. They started to organize the unfortunate people who wanted homes and felt that they had a grievance. Eventually, the Communists advocated something that was quite new at that time, namely, the practice of “squatting”. They found enough people to follow their lead, and throughout Brisbane groups of people “ squatted “ in former army camps and other buildings, in which they made their homes for considerable periods. The Government of Queensland was apparently powerless to deal with the Communists. However, on one eventful Saturday, the Communists induced a number of homeless people to “squat” in a building known as the South Brisbane old town hall, which had been vacated by the American forces only a short time before. Fortunately, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane immediately took action, and, be it remembered to his everlasting credit, he showed the necessary courage and firmness. Water and electricity services were cut off from the old building, and an ejectment order was obtained from the court, and the “ squatters “ left the pre- raises. The important point of theaction taken by the Lord Mayor at that time was that since then there has been no more “ squatting “. The comrades, having discovered that punishment and not publicity awaited- them for their actions, abandoned “squatting” as profitless. That proves my point that firm handling can stop the Communists. It stopped their “ squatting “ activities and it will their other activities. There may be a few “ squatters “ left in some ex- Army establishments around Brisbane, with the government of that State meekly hoping for the best. As I have said, the pattern of communism is clear. First, the Communists seize upon a grievance whether it is genuine or not. They build it up to attract public sympathy. They then draw attention to communism as the saviour of the people. They advocate violent action and then get their followers to take action not so violent as that advocated. If that fails, they abandon the field and look for other grievances. I repeat that firm handling is the one and only answer to communism.

I come now to another point that was mentioned by one honorable senator. During the war and in the immediate post-war years, there was an -urgent need for child-minding centres. Mothers whose husbands were in the services were anxious to have such centres established to care for their children. This project aroused considerable public sympathy, and once again the Communists started to work to .their pattern. Public meetings were called and were attended, of course, by Communists, some of whom secured places on the committees that were formed to press for the establishment of additional childminding centres. For quite a time the Communists led some of those committees but eventually the more stable elements of the community, realizing what was happening, assumed control and the Communists disappeared. Doubtless they will bob up again somewhere else in some other public movement, and will once again adopt their well-known practice of posing as people interested in the welfare of the community. That this is a pose is evident from the fact that they immediately withdraw when they meet firm opposition to their activities, or when they find no avenue for publicity and no material for violent action. All they are really interested in is endeavouring to find, inflammable human material that will help them to light the fires of revolution.

Nowadays “ squatting “ is forgotten. Child-minding centres and similar community services are regarded as “ small fry “, and the Communists have passed on to wider fields. They now find their greatest opportunities in exploiting discontent, frustration, and grievances, amongst workers in the great trade union movement. There also they find that inflammable human material that they need to strengthen their numbers. Since the Communists have obtained, positions in key trade unions their work hae followed the same old pattern. They attach themselves to a movement that has legitimate claims for public interest and sympathy. They secure office in those movements, and pose as> being interested in them and prepared, to fight in support of them. With violent words they urge action - usually direct action. They stay with the movement, creating as much disruption as possible while getting widespread publicity for their activities. They abandon, their action, or even abandon the movement when firm opposition, or public disapproval deposes them from office, or when they fail to secure publicity. They never disclose that their real objective is to so disrupt our system of society, and so disorganize our services that conditions will be ripe for a revolution. The pattern is clear, and the programme is well advanced. That is the problem that confronts us to-day, and it is to the solution of that problem that this bill is directed. The people of Australia have given this Government a mandate to rid Australia of the Communists, and this measure has been introduced in pursuance of that mandate. It is a sound .bill. It is symbolic of the firm opposition that is so disturbing to the Communists. The bil] also provides the Opposition with an opportunity to make known its position, decisively and clearly, to the people. Above all, the bill presents to all of us an opportunity to rid Australia of the menace of communism - that disrupting element that works to produce chaos as a prelude to “ red “ revolution. Let us get rid of this cancer. Failure to act now will be disastrous.

The people of Australia have endured much through Communist-inspired union activities. The brunt of the burden has fallen upon the women of this country, particularly the long-suffering housewife. She has to endure the shortages and the delays and interruptions to domestic supplies. She has had to contend daily with the increasing cost of almost everything that her household needs. Most of her worry has been due to the activities of Communists. At last, she is aware of that. The women of Australia were in the forefront of those who gave a mandate to this Government to sweep the Communists from this country. Whenever there is a shortage of a commodity - and there frequently is - it is usually due to the shortage of steel, which in turn is cue to the shortage of ..coal- or the shortage of electric power at the factory. The shortage of electric power results, of course, from a coal shortage. The moment one inquires about the reason for a shortage, one is usually told that it is due to the shortage of one or other of the goods or services that are provided by Communist-inspired unions^ The same may be said about delays. When there is a shortage of a commodity that Queensland obtains from, the southern States, and shopkeepers say that they will have it in a fortnight or perhaps a month, one knows immediately that Communistinspired transport unions are again holding up shipping. Here again, because of shortages, or delays, or both, the housewife is burdened with hours of extra work each week in finding her domestic needs’ Various commodities are still in short supply in Queensland. Ordinary safety matches are scarce, due, I am told, to shipping delays. Certain types of biscuits are obtainable only occasionally, and merchants have told me that the lack of continuity in deliveries from the south is a major problem. Because of steel and coal difficulties, Queensland is also short of ordinary nails and screws for homebuilding. All these shortages are due to to so-called industrial disturbances. In other words, they are. due to Communists’ tactics, which have as their underlying motive the fomenting of industrial unrest. The Communists hope that by continually interrupting supplies they may some day be able to disorganize the distribution system, that civilization, as we know it, will break down, and revolution will occur. While the Communists foment disruption in industry, the housewife carries the burden, and I say straightforwardly that she has bad enough. She is determined to end this Communist plan and to disband the Communist organization.

I am most concerned at the manner in which the Communist organization is playing at economics and is tampering with the purchasing power of our money. Freights have risen, and shipping costs are increasing. The general increase of wages is being passed on, quite legitimately, but when, on top of wage increases, we have a slow turn-round of ships, or, in other words, a startling reduction of the number of voyages made by each ship, it is not surprising that the cost of almost every commodity that is carried by sea is rising rapidly. One of the obvious duties of any Australian government, regardless of party economic theories, is to stabilize the purchasing power of the Australian fi. How can any government do that when Communist-inspired unions are piling up costs by their actions? Obviously, it would suit the Communist party if the Australian £1 were to lose more of its purchasing power, because, with the disappearance of the real value of the fi, would come poverty and shortages which are fertile breeding grounds for the revolution for which the Communists work so hard. It is the housewife who suffers most from rising costs. She has to economize and struggle to make both ends meet. While she is working out her problems, she knows that the blame for most of them can be laid at the door of the Communists. We, the women of this country, have discerned for some time the pattern of the Communist plan. We know what their objective is. For that reason. Australian women have given an unqualified mandate to this Government, through the ballot-box, to rid Australia of the forces that are plotting the destruction of our present system of civilization. The complete cynicism with which some Communist agitators view the real problems of the working man - his stan dard of living, health, leisure and old age - can be judged from a conversation that I had recently in Brisbane. One of my friends, a Queensland merchant, told me that in the course of conversation with one of his employees about a recent application by his union to the arbitrator, he told his employee that he doubted if the nation could afford an increased wage on the scale requested. The man was a good unionist and he is stated to have replied, “Well, there are only 18,000 of us and there are 8,000,000 people in Australia “. He meant, of course, that the extra coat of the 18,000 men concerned would not matter when spread over all the people in Australia. That is typical of the way in which industrial unrest is fomented. That unionist did not realize that if his union succeeded in its claim, the shipping unions would try for the same or relatively equal rates of pay. They in turn would be followed by others, and so the spiral of inflation would go on, perhaps at an accelerated pace, until eventually the first applicants would be forced to go to the courts again to get further increases to meet the higher costs that their own action had started in the first place.

The Communist leaders know this process called inflation. Their policy seems to be to press on with inflation by way of increased costs, until the purchasing power of money is so reduced that the misery of the masses provides the material for the revolution towards which they are working. I appeal to honorable senators to pass this bill quickly. The sooner it is on the statute-book the better it will be for the nation. I remind honorable senators opposite that the present system of civilization has given the people the standard of living of which- the Labour party and honorable senators on this side are so proud. It has given the amenities that make life so much easier, healthier and longer by many years. It also gave to honorable senators the opportunity to become senators. That distinction and honour has been made possible by our present system of democracy. From their point of view as well as from the viewpoint of the general public and the working man in particular, there is much to be said in favour of the present system. Therefore I say to honorable senators that they should expedite the passage of this hill which is so clearly needed by the people of this country. It is the answer to the mandate given to the Government by the electors. Among other things it is needed to protect the working mail, his wife and children and, indeed, everybody in this nation from exploitation by the adherents of a foreign ideology whose main motive is revolution. That is a serious thing to say, and it is for that reason that this bill has been designed to take charge of that situation. I ask the Opposition to co-operate with the Government in passing quickly this legislation which will be most beneficial to all. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– The remarks of the honorable senator who has just spoken were of an extremely sentimental character. They were probably provided for her so that she could put over a story which could be regarded as an appeal to certain people. One must go below the surface to find the real elements in her speech. My construction, on her remarks is that every effort that is made to improve the wages or conditions of the workers anywhere in Australia is the work of Communists. That is a most remarkable statement for the honorable senator to make and it is most unfair, because history has shown that the improvement in the living conditions and the standards of the people of this country, in the main, have been brought about as a result of conciliation and arbitration and through the development of the great Australian Labour movement.

It seems to be quite possible that the preamble to this bill can be associated with the suggestion by the honorable senator that it is wrong for the workers to get more wages and improve their conditions because in that way they are adding to the cost of living and helping the inflationary spiral. According to the honorable senator, the people who are guilty of this terrible action are Communists! In his speech the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) made reference to the preamble to the hill. He said, in effect, “ Do you agree with the preamble? If you do, you agree with the bill”. I disagree with the contention of the

Attorney-General. The remarks of Senator Annabelle Rankin have led me to give more attention to this preamble. This wordy document sets out, first of all, that this proposed law is to be made under the defence powers of the Commonwealth and that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the King and exercised by the Governor-General as his representative and extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and of the laws of the Commonwealth. It continues -

And whereas the Constitution also empowers the Parliament to make, laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by the constitution in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of the Government of the Commonwealth.

And whereas the Australian Communist Party, in accordance with the basic theory of communism, as expounded by Marx and Lenin, engages in activities or operations designed to assist or accelerate the coining of a revolutionary situation in which the Australian Communist Party, acting as a revolutionary minority, would be able to seize power and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat,

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

And in the next paragraph it adds, in respect to other aspects, that the Australian Communist party -

Engages in espionage and sabotage and in activities or operations of a treasonable or subversive nature.

Up to that stage the preamble is dealing with the Australian Communist party. It is stated that the Government will do something under the defence power and that the necessity for reliance on the defence power is based on the seriousness of the situation. The bill adds that the Government proposes further to ban the Australian Communist party and subsidiary bodies associated with it. No penalties are provided and the bill does not propose to impose any punishment other than to ban this insidious organization.

As to the banning of the Australian Communist party, honorable senators on this side are in agreement with the Government and they are not hypocritical

It is not true, as Senator McCallum lias suggested, that honorable senators on this side of the House are supporting the bill for opportunist reasons. That statement is rather a peculiar contrast to the remarks made by Senator Annabelle Rankin, who stated that this bill gave the Opposition au opportunity to make its position quite clear. There is no need for honorable senators on this side of the chamber to make their position clear in relation to this matter. We agree with the banning of the Australian Communist party but that is only because that is one way in which it is possible, more or less, to put out of existence an organization which is regarded as inimical to the interests of this country. Special legislation is necessary only for the purpose of banning the Communist party. There are other laws on the statute-book which could deal with all the situations referred to in the preamble of this bill. The preamble continues -

Whereas certain industries are vital to the security and defence of Australia (including the coal-mining industry, the iron and steel industry, the engineering industry, the building industry, the transport industry and the power industry) :

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

I suggest that Senator Annabelle Rankin has let the “cat out of the bag”. This bill, which presumably is to ban the Australian Communist party, goes much further, because it says in effect that any person or any body of people who endeavour to obtain a better standard of living, better rates of pay or improved working conditions, are Communists. I believe that the honorable senator may have been unfortunate in putting that aspect of this matter. Honorable senators must recollect that while there have been industrial disputes in recent times under the regime of this. Government and of the previous Government, there were just as many industrial disputes under the regime of earlier governments.

So far as the coal-mining industry is concerned, I point out that the miners were provoked into long stoppages of work. People who claim that this legislation will protect the people of Australia did nothing in the days when the coal-miners were locked out after they had built up stock-piles of coal. The stock-piles were seized upon then by the same people to damn the workers who were trying to do something for their own benefit. This bill provides for the dissolution of the Australian Communist party and affiliated or associated organizations, and for disqualifying Communists from holding certain offices. So far, there does not seem to be much wrong with it, except as regards the methods to be employed, and on that point there is serious difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition. The Government claims that it has a mandate to ban the Communist party. We know that a previous antiLabour Government banned the Communist party, but what did it achieve? The Communist party grew and thrived. Once people get the idea that an attempt is being made to interfere with freedom of speech and action in regard to any organization, thousands of people will join that organization who otherwise would have had nothing to do with it. We know that, because of Communist domination of certain trade unions, there has been some industrial dislocation. The Labour Government was accused of being weak-kneed in its handling of the Communists; yet, as Senator McKenna has pointed out, the only legislation on the statute-book designed specifically to deal with the Communists was sponsored by a Labour government. We shall not quarrel with the Government over its claim that it has a mandate to ban the Communist party and associated bodies, but we do not intend to accept a drag-net provision, the effect of which will be to bring into existence a police state.

Clause 4 of the bill provides for the appointment of a receiver to deal with the property of the Australian Communist party. The party has certain assets which will be taken over by a receiver, who will be authorized to realize on the assets, discharge outstanding liabilities, and then. strangely enough, transfer any surplus U> the Commonwealth of Australia. The assets of an organization really belong to the members of that organization, and I cannot understand how, in justice, the Commonwealth can appropriate moneys that belong to the members of an organization, even if that organization has been banned. The proposal savours of tyranny of the worst type in that it provides for confiscation of property without due process of law, and without any provision for compensation. In this, the bill differs greatly from legislation providing for the compulsory acquisition of property by the Government for defence or other purposes. “We know that, under the law, the Government can say to a citizen that it intends to take his property whether he likes it or not, but the Government must pay compensation. Under this legislation, any surplus remaining after the liquidation of the assets of a declared organization becomes the property of the Commonwealth, but is it to be paid into consolidated revenue, or is it to be locked up in a trust fund for future use? I have here a book called The Constitution of the United States, by William Bennett Munro. I admit that I do not know anything about him, but I take it he is a constitutional lawyer of some consequence in the United States of America. Discussing the Bill of Rights, the author states -

Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Under this legislation, it is proposed to deprive members of an organization of their property without due process of law.

Senator O’sullivan:

– The writer of the book is discussing the rights of individuals.

Senator NASH:

– The quotation continues -

The Declaration of Independence spoke o£ the right to “ life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness “. The constitution changes this to “ life, liberty or property “. This is an indication of the psychological change that had been wrought in the American public mind during the intervening years . . .

What is “due process of law”? To determine the meaning of these four words has given the federal courts no end of trouble during the past hundred years, and even to-day they have not succeeded in making it absolutely clear. No other phrase in the constitution has proved so elusive, but in a general way the requirement of “due process” means that there must be, in all actions to deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property, an observance of those judicial forms and usages which by general consent have become the essentials of a fair judicial proceeding.

In a word, due process of law is a synonym for fair play. It means the sort of process which hears before it condemns; which proceeds by inquiry, and renders judgment only after ascertaining the facts.

The writer goes on -

Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This clause limits the right of eminent domain. In general the right of, a nation or state to take private property for public use is eminent or paramount. It is a right that transcends private ownership. It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty that a government shall have the right to acquire private property for an essential public use even when the owner of the property objects to giving it up. Otherwise a government could not perform its functions, because private property is needed from time to time for fortifications, navyyards, post offices, customs houses, schoolhouses, parks, highways, and so on.

A little further on he states -

In the United States the right of eminent domain is preserved, but with the important limitation that the government is not permitted to take private property for public use without just compensation to the owner. This compensation is usually fixed by amicable agreement between the government and the private owner concerned; but failing such an agreement the matter goes to the courts and the amount of compensation is determined there by a jury.

This bill represents a grave departure from the principles enunciated by the author whose work I have quoted, principles that are embodied in the Constitution of the United States of America. The Attorney-General, referring to the preamble to the bill, said that the Government was acting under the defence powers of the Constitution. That seems to me to savour of using a steam-hammer to crack a nut. What is the strength of the Communist party in Australia? Why cannot the subversive activities of its members be dealt with under existing laws? There is ample provision under the law as it stands to act against subversive or treasonable persons. If a man commits treason, or makes statements prejudicial to the welfare of the community, let him be dealt with under the law. In any caBe, organizations cannot be prosecuted for treason. On such a charge, only individuals can be indicted. I can understand legislation of this kind being introduced as a security measure taken to provide for the protection of the rocket range. “Debate interrupted.

page 3452

ADJOURNMENT

Hospital Benefits - Armed Forces - MOTOR Vehicles.

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I wish to direct the attention of the Minister .representing the Minister for Health to anomalies arising from the scheme for the payment by the Government of Ss. a day in respect of patients in hospitals. Throughout Australia there are private convalescent hospitals, which, in some States, are registered and entitled to receive from the Government the payment to which I have referred. They relieve the burden on public and semi-public hospitals by treating patients who would otherwise have to be treated in those hospitals, and are doing magnificent work in nursing sick people back to health. However, in some States, hospitals of that kind are not entitled to receive the subsidy that is paid by the Government to public hospitals and private hospitals registered under the scheme. I suggest that the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) should confer with the State Ministers of Health upon this matter. I understand that he proposed to do so five months ago, but up to the present time he has not done so. The conference could consider means of achieving uniformity in the payment of the subsidy. I understand, that one convalescent hospital in New South “Wales is in receipt of the subsidy. In Tasmania there are convalescent homes and hospitals, with fully qualified nurses in attendance, in which patients receive medical treatment by doctors, but, for some reason or other, they are not allowed to be registered and cannot participate in the subsidy. If arrangements can be made for a convales cent hospital in New South “Wales to be registered under the laws of that State, the time has arrived when the Minister for Health should confer with the State Ministers of Health to see whether uniformity can be achieved so that all hospitals playing a part in nursing the sick back to health can participate in this scheme.

I refer now to a matter that I raised some days ago. Ministers have said recently that they will not answer questions addressed to them in relation to press reports, but when they are reported by the press to have made statements of public importance I consider that the Senate is entitled to be told whether or not the statements have in fact been made. It has been stated in the press that the Australian Government is to recruit in Great Britain 4’,500 men for the Australian Permanent Army, but I have not been able to ascertain whether or not that report is accurate. The representatives of the people in this chamber are entitled to know whether it is accurate.

Senator Maher:

– Does the honorable senator object to that being done?

Senator AYLETT:

- Senator Maher is not eligible to enlist in the army because of his age. I am speaking on behalf of young Australians who are not here to speak for themselves. If the press report be accurate and if our young men have not been given every opportunity and offered every inducement to which they are entitled to join the Australian permanent army, the action of the Government is a slur upon the manhood of this country. If some of our kinsmen in Great Britain want to migrate to Australia, I agree that they should be given every assistance to come here and become Australian citizens. If, having arrived in this country, they desire to join the Australian army, as Australians, I agree that they should be allowed to do so. In the absence of any explanation by the Government, I disagree with the proposal to go outside this country to recruit a permanent army. “We do not know what the army is to be brought here for. I consider that the Senate is entitled to some information upon this matter. We do not know whether the press report is accurate. It is the duty of the responsible Minister in this chamber to either confirm it or deny it, and, if he confirms it, to tell the Senate the reason why this army is to be recruited in Great Britain and why it is not possible to recruit it in Australia.

SenatorMURRAY (Tasmania) [10.37]. - I direct the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) to the very serious position that has developed in the automotive transport and repair industry in this country owing to the shortage of spare parts for imported motor vehicles. We are all aware that Great Britain and some continental countries are in the midst of a great drive to export fully equipped motor vehicles of all kinds;but, although large numbers of vehicles are arriving in this country, the British and continental manufacturers have not made provision for an adequate supply of spare parts. At the present time many vehicles are laid up in repair shops owing to the lack of spare parts.I have ascertained from the industry that, in connexion with motor car parts, only 10 per cent. are provided for by import licences.

SenatorO’Sullivan. - From England?

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes. No provision whatsoever has been made for spare parts for cars manufactured by continental manufacturers. When some expensive English cars, costing up to £1,500 or£1,750, require spare parts, the parts must he made and milled in machine shops here. Owners are involved in considerable expense, apart from the fact that their vehicles are out of use for lengthy periods.

I ask the Minister to examine this matter and to ensure that, when licences are issued for the importation of motor vehicles and diesel equipment, a sufficient quantity of spare parts shall also he imported, or that the responsibility to provide them is brought to the notice of importers, so that in the event of breakdowns delays of up to three months in repairing expensive vehicles will not occur.

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

– Import licences are not necessary in respect of motor vehicles from Britain, France, Italy or other soft currency countries. Licences are required only in respect of vehicles that have a hard currency or dollar content. I am not aware that we have imported anycars from Belgium or Western Germany, two hard currency countries in Europe. Very, few cars are being imported from America. In these circumstances, it seems that there has been some misunderstanding. Even if import licences were necessary in respect of cars from soft currency countries, it is not the responsibility of my department or of the Australian Government to state how many spare parts must be made available. That is a matter for the trade itself. I suggest that the honorable senator should check the information with which he has been supplied. If there is any way in which I can help him, I shall be very happy to do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative. PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department ofLabour and National Service - R. S. Horne.

Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 May 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500531_senate_19_208/>.