19th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3666
– I direct the following questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate: - (1) Is it a fact that because of an increase in the population, approximately 17½ to 20 per cent, more meat is being consumed yearly in Australia than in1943? (2) Is the Government aware that meat prices sky-rocketed on the previous abnormal prices in Adelaide last week? (3) Is the Government aware that lamb chops were 3s.5d. per lb. (11d. rise), forequarters 1s.11d. per lb. (6d. rise), shoulder 2s.1d. per lb. (6d. rise) and leg 3s. per lb. (9d. rise) in Adelaide and that charges for other meats were also increased, and that the secretary of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation has said that to cover normal overhead charges those prices were necessary? (4) Does the Government agree that because of the high wool prices and the bountiful rains over much of our stock country, consumers generally will be adversely affected for many more months? (5) Will the Australian Government, with its very limited constitutionalpower consider the necessity of conferring with State governments, in order that some immediate practical form of sane price control, which must begin at the hoof, is introduced at the earliest possible moment to relieve the position, thus making this necessary part of our diet available to the people at reasonable prices? (6) Is the Government aware that many small master butchers cannot continue in business unless this bad practice is checked ?
– I am not aware of the details to which the honorable senator has referred. I have seen statements that the population of Australia has increased by about 15 per cent, in the last ten years so that the figures given by the honorable senator would be approximately correct. Pursuing that line of thought, naturally the consumption of foodstuffs would be increased considerably. In regard to the prices charged in Adelaide, I presume that there are State laws in South Australia requiring prices control, just as there are in other States, and I do not think that it would be desirable for the Commonwealth to intrude in matters which are exclusively within the province of the States. I am quite sure that if the Commonwealth were requested, and it were within its capacity and ability, it would assist the States in carrying out prices control policy.
page 3667
– Will the Leader of the Government state what plans are in hand for the celebrations to mark the 50th Anniversary of the foundation of this Commonwealth? Do the dates of those celebrations coincide sufficiently with the festival of Britain to allow the organization of representatives and exhibitions? Will both celebrations be linked with Empire Day so that the Empire Day ceremonies will take on greater meaning and acquire more significance from next year?
– I have heard only informally that some attention is being given to the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the foundation of the Commonwealth, but I am not conversant with the details. If the honorable senator will place the question on the noticepaper, an answer will bc supplied in due course.
page 3667
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Supply yet received a reply to the question I asked on the 25th May about the effect which the aluminium project in New Guinea, in Which the Australian Government is to be a partner with the Government of the United Kingdom, is likely to have on the aluminium industry in Tasmania?
– The Minister for Supply has furnished the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -
I can give the assurance desired that the exploratory project being undertaken in New Guinea by the Commonwealth in co-operation with the “British Alu mini inn Company Limited will not in any way interfere with the production of aluminium in Tasmania. Work on the Tasmanian project is proceeding with all possible speed.
page 3667
– Can the Minister for Repatriation say whether it is true that the repatriation wards in the Launceston general hospital are to be closed? Does the Minister know that if the wards are closed considerable hardship will be occasioned to ex-servicemen in northern Tasmania? Has the Minister received any representations on the subject from the Launceston branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia urging that the wards be not closed ?
– I have received representations from honorable senators representing Tasmania on the subject of the repatriation wards in the Launceston general hospital. The repatriation hospital in Tasmania is situated in Hobart, but the Repatriation Department has the use of certain wards in the Launceston general hospital. The position in regard to the repatriation wards at Launceston is at present under review, and I shall let the honorable member know as soon as a decision is reached.
– Is the Minister for Repatriation aware that bodies representing the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, full-rate pensioners and blinded ex-servicemen are petitioning the members of the Parliament to seek some alleviation of the hardships they are suffering because of the inadequacy of the present pension rates? Is he also aware that the bodies that I have mentioned have requested the Government to take action to remedy their grievances, and that they have asked that any increase of pension rates be made retrospective to a date not later than the 1st June? “Will he assure the Senate that he will plead with the Government for more sympathetic treatment of exservicemen in the categories that I have mentioned ?
– I assure the honorable senator that the Government will do all it possibly can to ensure that deserving cases of the kind mentioned by the honorable senator, and other deserving cases, will be fully provided for at the earliest possible opportunity. However, I point out that the present Government has been in office barely six months, and that during that period it has placed on the statute book more legislation than any previous administration. Although the previous Chifley Administration “was aware, twelve or eighteen months ago, of the unhappy situation of the classes of pensioners mentioned by the honorable senator, in its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, it did nothing to alleviate their distress. I assure the honorable senator that at the appropriate time, and as soon as possible, legislation will be introduced to alleviate the distress .suffered by incapacitated members of the services and the dependants of deceased ex-servicemen, in view of the present higher costs of living.
– I do not suggest that the Minister has purposely avoided the point of my question, -but, in view of his admission that permanently and totally incapacitated pensioners have been encountering financial difficulty for some time, I should like to know whether he will give an assurance that when the Government does increase pensions, the increased payment will be made retrospective to cover that period.
– That is a matter of Government policy. An announcement about pensions and allowances will be made in due course.
– In view of the increasing difficulties experienced by war pensioners because of the rising cost of living, can the Minister for Repatriation say whether the Government intends to introduce legislation this session, as indicated by the present Prime Minister in his policy speech, to amend pension rates? If not, will the Government make any subsequent increases retrospective to the 1st June of this year?
– In his policy speech, the Prime Minister said that war pensions and allowances, including pensions to war widows, would receive early consideration. A sub-committee of six members of Cabinet, all of them exservicemen, was appointed some time ago to inquire into war pensions and allowances. The sub-committee has completed its investigations and will present its report to Cabinet in due course. The report will receive full consideration. The Prime Minister promised that legislation in regard to pensions would be introduced as soon as possible, and that promise will be honoured.
– Will the Minister for Repatriation tell the Senate what legislation has been placed on the statutebook since the Government took office in December, 1949?
– In my previous answer I should have said, “brought before Parliament “. Honorable senators know that no legislation has actually been placed on the statute-book since the Government took office. The reason is that in this Senate, the Government has been hindered and delayed on every occasion. If the honorable senator desires to see the enactment of this very important legislation which has been before both Houses of the Parliament since the early part of the year, I suggest that he and his colleagues in the Opposition give a little more co-operation than they have in the past.
page 3669
– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say when the Australian people who, for many years, have been restricted in the purchase of rice, will again be able to buy rice freely? Is there any possibility that the existing restrictions will be removed ?
– The purchase of rice is controlled by my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.
– The control is pretty tight, too.
– Notwithstanding the remark of Senator Ashley, f point out that the control at present exercised is in no way different from that which has operated for some years past. I ‘understand that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture is examining the position, but I cannot say when a decision will be reached or what it will be.
page 3669
Prime Minister’s Second-reading Speech.
– Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate whether there is any truth in a report, published in to-day’s press, that, in view of the many grave errors that were made by the Prime Minister in referring to trade union officials in his speech on the motion for the second-reading of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in the House of Representatives, it is proposed to overhaul the security service?
– The question is based upon a misconception. It is not correct to say that many grave errors were disclosed in the speech to which the honorable senator has referred. In fact, only one error was made in describing a person as a Communist. The other errors related merely to the offices held by the persons referred to. If my recollection is correct, these persons had held the offices that it was said they held, but they did not hold them at the time the speech was made. There is no justification for an overhaul of the kind to which the honorable senator has referred.
page 3669
– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Air, by stating that it was reported recently in the press that a squadron of Royal Australian Air Force transport aircraft is to he sent to Malaya. I point out that if that action is taken, it may involve us in war. Will the Minister say whether it is a fact that eight Royal Australian Air Force transport aircraft are scheduled to leave Australia for Malaya? Will those aircraft be used against the Malayans? Has any military equipment been sent from Australia to Malaya? If so, will the Minister state the quantities and types of equipment that have been sent? In view of the fact that it has been agreed at international conferences that small nations shall have the right to elect their own governments and administer their own affairs, and since the suggested action of the Australian Government will conflict with that agreement, will the Minister advise the Senate why the Australian Government does not mind its own business, and allow the Malayan people to mind theirs?
– In deference to the length of the question and not in deference to its content, I ask the honorable senator to place it upon the noticepaper, in order that in replying to him I shall not have to rely upon my memory.
– In reply to a question that I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate recently about the sending of troops to Malaya, he said that as the Prime Minister usually raised such matters in the Parliament before action was taken, he had no doubt that that procedure would be followed in this instance. Now that the Government has determined to send troops to Malaya, which action is likely to be grossly misunderstood by the Asiatics who claim Asia for the Asiatics and a flame thus be spread throughout Asia, will the Minister assure the Senate that a full statement about the Malayan situation will he made as soon as possible?
– Eather the honorable senator is under a complete misapprehension or possesses information that is not available to me. I am not aware that troops have been sent to Malaya. Government policy in this matter will be announced in due course.
– Is it not a fact that members of the Royal Australian Air Force have been sent to Malaya?
– Apparently the honorable senator does not know the difference between troops and airmen. I am not so familiar with the Asiatic mind as the honorable senator appears to be. A full and correct statement on this matter will be .made by the Prime Minister at the appropriate time.
– If my recollection is correct, the Leader of the Government stated, some time ago, in reply to a question about Australian intervention in Malaya, that if the Government considered it necessary to send Australian forces to Malaya, he would first give members of this chamber an opportunity to discuss the matter. In view of the serious consequences that could ensue from the movement of Australian ex-servicemen to Malaya, as has been suggested in the press, I now ask the Leader of the Government whether the press statements have been brought to his notice, and, if so, whether they are correct? If those statements are correct, will the Minister say why he did not honour his promise that honorable senators would be given an opportunity to discuss the whole situation before any Australian ex-servicemen were sent overseas?
– The honorable senator’s question is based on a gross distortion of what I said in this chamber.
– I said that I was speaking from memory. I believe what I said to bo correct.
– Then the question is based on a most unreliable memory. I repeat that, if the circumstances warrant it, I am quite confident that the Prime Minister will make a statement at the appropriate time.
page 3670
– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Postal Department will give consideration to having the name of the keepers of small country telephone exchanges and the names of the exchanges published, free of charge, in telephone directories? Owing to the extension of telephone facilities to many new subscribers, the many alterations in telephone numbers and dialling letters, and the amount of new work being done by the Postal Department, will the PostmasterGeneral consider the publication, when circumstances warrant it in any State, of a supplementary telephone directory, approximately six months after the publication of the annual directory ?
– I shall be pleased to direct the attention of the PostmasterGeneral to the questions that the honorable senator has asked. I hope that I shall be able to furnish him with a reply at an early date.
page 3670
– Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister inform the Senate of the number of permanent and temporary employees of the Commonwealth on the 1st December, 1949, and the 1st June, 1950?
– I shall be happy to obtain the information sought and supply it to the honorable senator.
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
Is it a fact that officers of the Commonwealth Public Service who elected to contribute under the Superannuation Act for retirement at 00 years of age and who, at. the Government’s request remained in the Service after they had reached that a,ge, an; not entitled to a pension until after retirement? If so, why?
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
This matter is governed by the Superannuation Act 1922-1948. Under section 16a of that act, an officer may elect to contribute for pension at the rates applicable to and based on a retiring agc of GO years. Where a contributor so elects, hu is entitled upon retirement at that age to receive full pension according to the number of units for winch he was contributing. This section also provides that where the contributor does not retire on attaining the age of GO years, his contributions shall cease but he shall not bc entitled to receive pension until his retirement.
Section 29a of the act provides for percentage increases of pensions in cases of contributors who remain in the service for at least one year after attaining the retiring age
page 3671
– I preface .my question to the Minister for Social Services by pointing out that legislation has recently been enacted in New South Wales to increase superannuation payments by 25 per cent. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Department of Social Services has been directed to ensure that the means test will not be applied detrimentally to the pensioner spouse of a superannuated person, thus offsetting the increased superannuation payment?
– It is quite apparent from the debate that occurred in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly last year tha t when the New South Wales Government decided to increase superannuation payments it was known that they would be affected by the means test. The accusation that has been made by the Premier of New South Wales that the Department of Social Services is acting against the pensioners is totally inaccurate and made solely for electioneering purposes. When the proposal was in contemplation I interviewed a deputation from the Retired Tramwaymen’s Association. I went through the whole of the range of superannuation payments that were involved and endeavoured to differentiate between those that would attract the means test and those that would not. I told the deputation that at the appropriate time I would do what I could to assist it by making some readjustment of the means test just as I would try to assist all those persons who were contributors to superannuation schemes at the time of their retirement. It is entirely uv.fair of the Premier of New SouthWales to say that the Government has, in some way, victimized recipients of superannuation benefits.
asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -
page 3671
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service say whether it is true that certain Commonwealth Employment Service offices in country towns such as Peterborough in South Australia are being closed ? If so, has the Government fully considered the hardships and inconveniences that will be caused to many people through this action because of the valuable assistance tha6 employment officers have been to employers in pastoral areas, the railway authorities - I speak particularly of the Peterborough district - pensioners, recipients of sickness and repatriation benefits, and in immigration matters generally? In view of the great service that has been rendered to the community generally by officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service, particularly in distant country areas, will the Government reconsider its decision to close certain offices ?
– I am aware that a review of the Commonwealth Employment Service has been completed recently and that, as a result, certain offices are to be closed. It is expected, I understand, that this action will result in greater all-round efficiency. I shall bring the honorable senator’s remarks about the Peterborough office to the notice of the Minister for Labour and National Service.
page 3672
– Oan the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether it is true that the supply of newsprint is becoming very low and is causing concern throughout Australia? Did the Government recently refuse Western Press Limited dollars to permit suspended Canadian contracts for the supply of newsprint to be maintained % Is it a fact that Western Press Limited desired to renew Canadian long-term contracts for a ten-year period from 1949, and, because of growing dollar difficulties, sought Government approval, which was given but subject to progressive reductions as the dollar stringency increased ? Is it a fact that Western Press Limited asked the Government in April last for dollar accommodation to purchase 23,500 tons of Canadian paper for the balance of 1950 and that the Government refused such accommodation? Is the Government aware that, if Canadian contracts are not renewed this year, Canadian suppliers may cancel all contracts in view of the demand for Canadian newsprint from countries other than Australia ? As the livelihood of many Australian workmen depends upon an adequate supply of newsprint, and as Western Press Limited has utilized all means to obtain sufficient newsprint from sterling sources, will the Government reconsider its refusal to make available sufficient dollars to maintain the Canadian supplies?
– The honorable senator’s questions are similar t.= representations that were made recently to the Prime Minister and me on behalf of the newspaper publishing industry. The case submitted by the representatives of that industry will be put before the Cabinet in due course, and full consideration will be given to their representations.
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answer* to the honorable senator’s questions anas follows : -
page 3672
asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 3673
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -
– The Minister for Health has supplied the following answers : -
page 3673
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice -
– The Minister for Supply has supplied the following answers : -
page 3673
asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice -
In view of the early retiring age of permanent officers in the Navy, Army and Air Force, when such men are usually retired at a time when their value to the service is enhanced by years of experience, and also when their family responsibilities are heaviest, will the Minister consider transferring such service personnel on their retirement to the civilian staff of the various services, so that their specialized knowledge may be utilized to the best advantage in- the defence of this country ?
– The Acting Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers: -
Employment in the civilian staffs of the service departments is subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. Whilst service personnel after retirement from the forces have in a number of cases been employed in civilian positions under the Commonwealth Public Service Act it is not practicable to “ transfer “ any considerable number of service personnel on their retirement from the forces to the civilian staffs of the service departments. It is pointed out that when the earlier retiring ages for members of the forces were introduced the question was raised of their employment in a civilian capacity in the service departments. In view, however, of the relatively high number of officers and other ranks serving” in the forces who would become due for retirement from time to time in the future on reaching the earlier retiring ages, such a proposition was found to be impracticable as there would not be sufficient positions, particularly in the higher administrative posts, to be allocated to these personnel. In the circumstances the lie fence Forces Retirement Benefits Act was enacted to provide for payment of pensions on a contributory basis to members of the forces on their retirement on reaching the earlier retiring ages. The rates’ of pension for service personnel on retirement are very heavily subsidized by the Commonwealth over and above the normal Commonwealth subsidy payable to civil servants. This heavy loading was included as an additional compensation for the earlier retiring age3. It is also pointed oi.t that in the event of a member of the forces on reaching the age for retirement being appointed in a civilian capacity to a permanent position under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, his pension rights under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act may be exchanged for equivalent rights under the Superannuation Act. In the case of a service pensioner accepting temporary employment mi the civil staff of one of the service departments, his pension would be paid at the full rate for 28 working days in each twelve months and automatically reduced thereafter by the amount of the government contribution to the pension. The question of the amount of the reduction of pensions in such cases is, however, at present under review.
page 3674
Debate resumed from the 1st June, 1950 (vide page 3576), on motion by Senator o’sullivan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– When the Senate adjourned last week, I had just named three honorable* senators opposite who had attacked the trade union movement. They hope that this hill will have the effect of removing certain trade union officials from office, and of ensuring that those appointed to take their places will do only what the Government wants them to do. It is clear, as I have already pointed out, that some honorable senators wish to smash the trade unions. Indeed, all honorable senators who support the Government have discussed this problem exclusively in its relation to trade unions and their leaders. They have attacked the trade union movement and its leaders, and said that the movement is associated with the Communist party.
It seems to me that any person who points to injustices to which our present methods of government and system of society give rise can be declared under this bill, especially if he confides his ideas to any of the persons upon whose advice the Prime Minister apparently acted recently when he read in the House of Representatives a list of names of individuals who were said to be Communists and in control of some trade unions. The officers of the security service, who are, I suppose, the persons used mainly by the Government for this purpose, obtain their information from all kinds of sources, but mainly from persons who have an obsession on the subject of communism. Some honorable senators opposite have exhibited that obsession by branding everybody who holds leftist views or wishes to reform our system of society as either a Communist or a fellow traveller. Persons who are obsessed in that way are not reasonable human beings. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) was speaking on the motion for the second reading of this bill in the House of Representatives, he referred to a man named Hibbens and said that he was South Australian president of the Builders Trades Federation. Mr. Hibbens has never held that office. The statement was afterwards corrected by the Prime Minister-
– What was the union of which he was president? Was it the Building Workers Union?
– It was not.
– Which one was it?
– I shall tell the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) in a few moments. The Prime Minister, shortly afterwards, corrected the statement that he had made, and said that Mr. Hibbens was president of the Builders Labourers Federation. The right honorable gentleman was supplied with inaccurate information. I have known Mr. Hibbens for nearly 50 years. He has never been a member of the Communist party. His political affiliation has always been with the Australian Labour party. It is admitted that he is an industrial leftist and also, for that matter, a leftist in the political Labour movement, but he has never been a member of the Communist party. Some time ago he was elected as president of the Builders Labourers Union, and because he carried out the wishes of the members of that union and sought better conditions of employment for them, he has been declared by the Prime Minister of this country to be a Communist. I have referred to that matter to show, first, that mistakes can be made; secondly, that Mr. Hibbens was declared to be a Communist because some persons have an obsession on the subject of communism, and thirdly, that the Government, by introducing this bill, appears to be aiming only at the industrial trade union movement of this country.
The obsession from which some honorable senators opposite suffer was revealed by one of them who spoke on this hill recently. He said, in effect, “ If you are not a Communist, you are a fellow traveller; and if you are not a fellow traveller, you ought to be “. I commend to the Government the remarks that were made by Chief Justice Latham in the Sodeman case, reported in Commonwealth Law Reports. Quoting Dr. Ellery on obsessions, he said -
If a man gives way to that obsession and does the thing which ig always before his mind as the thing he wants to do, then, in doing it, he does not know the quality of his act, and he does not know what he is doing, and he does not know whether it is right or wrong.
That sums up the attitude of those who are responsible for the introduction of this bill.
– Is the honorable senator opposed to the bill?
– Was the Attorney-General present in the chamber when I began my speech on this motion a few days ago ?
– Having regard to what the honorable senator has just said, I am interested to know whether or not he is opposed to the bill.
– If the Attorney-General reads the report of the remarks that I made the other day, he will learn the answer to that question.
– Perhaps the . honorable senator will tell me again?
– I repeat that I am opposed to the whole of the provisions of this bill.
– Then the honorable senator will vote against the motion for the second reading of the measure?
– The AttorneyGeneral will see. I have said previously that the Liberal party and the Australian Country party slavishly follow the huge monopolistic interests that are behind measures of this kind. The war shifted the control of international finance and economics from Europe to America. Huge Credits have been made available by this band of monopolists to various countries in order to protect their trading interests. The combines and the cartels of pre.-war days have not been broken up ; they have only shifted their venue of control. They have made huge sums of money available for the purpose of enlarging their spheres of interest, whether by cartels or straightout monopolies. Having done that, it is necessary for them to protect, not only their original, -but also their newer and enlarged spheres of interest. It is their desire to protect their trading interests that is- responsible for the introduction of bills of this kind.
– It was the coal strike.
– The whole of it, propaganda and all, has been initiated by the war-mongers of the world. In all countries there is a growing demand for a better deal for the great industrial and primary producing masses, as distinct from vested interests or investments. There is a . movement for peace in this country. Honorable senators opposite have commented upon men and women who attended a certain peace conference recently. Because some Communist organizations or individual Communists have become linked with moves for peace, propaganda has been directed against them throughout the world. That is applied in Australia. It is applied usually in one or two countries at a time with the object of defeating a peace movement in one country, and subsequently using that propaganda to defeat a peace movement in another country. It is a matter of politics. A similar process is adopted to defeat popular governments. It is largely a matter of economics or materialism. I recall that Marx; wrote a book on materialism. If this measure should become law and 1 were to mention that’ book outside the
Parliament apparently I could be declared.
In the Australian Labour party and also in social credit movements and land reform leagues there are what are termed “leftists”. There are leftists who are opposed to certain religious denominations, as distinct from Christianity. There are leftists who believe that Christianity can be applied to every phase of life. They are advanced thinkers. However, under this measure, they could be declared because of their desire to effect a revolutionary change in our system in order to achieve what they sincerely believe would be a better way of life. There is an ever-growing band of people who are learning that our economic system is ruled by a small minority and they rule despite the system of parliamentary government that has been established in Australia, because they control certain financial economy. It is not to be wondered at that when these -people become exasperated at the system they use words against it. Under this measure those words could be construed to mean that they were outright Communists or fellow travellers. If those people were seen talking to a Communist, or were heard advocating a theory that had previously been expounded by Marx and Lenin - of whom they may not even have heard before, much less read their books - they could be declared. There would be no redress. Even if provision were made for redress, it would be utterly impossible for these people, because of lack of money, to defend themselves. Every word that they uttered could be misconstrued by clever lawyers. Thereafter the fact that they had been declared would operate to blight the best part of their life. By slow starvation the dependants of the people so declared would be murdered: I point out that a person could be declared although he had never been a Communist and had had no connexion with Communists. He may be a member of a union that’ had been deregistered and declared an illegal body because a minority of its members had acted contrary to the Australian laws. Every member of it could likewise be declared because, in the opinion of the Government - not a matter of fact, but merely an opinion - he was likely to en- gage in activities prejudicial to the defence of this country. I stress that there would be no redress for such a person either before or after being declared. Some people are confounding Christianity with sectional religious denominations. Christianity does not deny the right of any one to seek a complete change in the methods used to apply the teachings of God to everyday life. Individuals of some creed, with an obsession, may try by ranting and raving, or even by forge. to prevent social changes. The true Christian never does any of those things. I am indebted to the Reverend Percy H. Chennell, a Methodist minister, who is opposed to. communism. As a result of his research he has published a pamphlet called A Catechism on Communism. In his foreword he says that Christians can and must outthink, outplan, and outlive the policies of Marx, in order to defeat them. He points out that the late Dr. William Temple, who was a very high dignitary of the Church of England, stated’ that Christianity is and must be materialistic, because there exists a soul and a body. He -also stated that President Roosevelt, the day before he died, made a statement about these things, particularly about the Christian point of view. President Roosevelt said that if civilization is to survive we must develop the science of human relationships, the ability of peoples of all kinds to work together in the same world for peace. The Reverend Mr. Chennell stresses that various high church dignitaries had expressed the view that Marx was doubtless influenced not only by the conditions that culminated in the French Revolution, but also by those that led to revolution in Russia. Professor Saintsbury, in a commentary on Voltaire, who said, “ Crush the infamous Thing”, pointed out that some people had contended that Voltaire had stated that religion and Christianity should be crushed. Professor Saintsbury however, said he was dealing with materialism because it encroached upon Christian ethics in certain churches. In his book, the Reverend P. H. Chennell deals with the materialism that has attached itself to religion, and he gives statistics of the Orthodox Church and other religious denominations in Russia, and quotes Sir John Maynard to the effect that the church was an oppressor. He gives details of oppressive acts. In all those instances, the material lism of the religious denominations was overriding the ethics of Christianity, and I thank Mr. Chennell for the illustrations that he has given. I point out again that a great deal of the propaganda directed against the Communistic party, and the so-called “ fellow travellers “, is, in reality, directed against the Australian Labour party. We had an example of that in the remarks made by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) in New South Wales a few nights ago.
– The honorable senator knows that the objectives of the Communists and of the Labour party are identical ?
– By his interjection, the honorable senator ha3 just admitted the truth of my contention, which is that the anti-Labour propaganda is directed really against the Labour movement. What do honorable senators opposite want? Are they after the Com.munist party, or after the Labour party?
– The Communist party.
– They are after any “leftists”. They are seeking to smash the industrial and Labour movement of this country.
– Not through this bill.
– Yes, through the bill. It has been said that where materialism supersedes the ethics of any church, it causes violent disagreement even amongst the adherents of that church, and, more so, amongst the leaders of the great mass of the people. That remark applies, even to-day, although perhaps not so much to Australia, as to other countries. In this country an individual may occasionally denounce the ethics of the churches, but the great bulk of social reformers, whether Communist or otherwise, challenge only the materialism of the churches, which is more pronounced in some religious bodies than in others. In any event, materialism characterizes a church only when it has placed the ethics of Christianity in the background.
The bill is an attempt to bolster up the materialism of capitalism, and is founded upon the lie that the Communists and the so-called “ fellow travellers “ have repudiated the ethics of Christianity, and have denied God. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), who introduced the bill, said that the Communists have denied God. Another supporter of the Government has said that the objectives of the Labour movement are the same as those of the Communist party. Who are the antiLabour parties after? I challenge them to prove that any member of the Opposition has denied God. Because we continually criticize the material aspects which are permitted to override the ethics of Christianity, that is not a denial of God ; it is upholding the principles enunciated by Christ on this earth. What do the opponents of Labour want with this bill? What is the necessity for its introduction? The purpose of the bill is undoubtedly to attack the great Labour party, whose objectives, according to Senator Maher, are identical with those of the Communists, and whose policy is also, according to the Treasurer, the same as that of the Communists. The anti-Labour forces want to smash this live Labour movement. They want to get back to the old system so that they can exploit the people of the country as they did before.
I repeat again that I am opposed to the whole bill, and I know that some of my remarks will be misconstrued. I am quite aware that I will be told by honor- able senators opposite that I do not understand the purposes of the bill. I do understand them ; in fact, I understand them only too well. I understand also that all those people who have been trying to do some good for the ordinary people of this country, and, in doing so, have run up against authority, are to be endangered. In Victoria inquiries are already being made about the operation of certain Jewish bodies. No one knows why those inquiries have been undertaken, and no one will admit responsibility for having undertaken them. However, the fact is that, because of the inquiries that have been undertaken, the Jews are “up against it “.. Every J ew who has subscribed to the building of the Zionist city in Palestine is in danger of being “ declared “ under the bill. In fact, all my friends, including members of the Society of Friends and myself, are in danger because from time to time we preach the doctrine of Christianity, and are opposed to the materialism of religion and to those people who set aside the ethics of Christianity. In our activities we have bumped authority. In fact, we are always humping authorities. Another section of the community who will be liable to be “ declared “ under the bill are the members of the land reform leagues, who want to take away the rental value of land from those who own the land in this country. Although Marx also advocated such a step, the aims of the land reform leagues are not at present referred to as “ Communist activities “ but it is “ expropriation of the land “. The plain fact is that because the idea of the land reformers happens to coincide with one of the Marxist theories, they will be liable to be “ declared “. I could go on to enumerate many other sections of the community who will be .liable to be “ declared “ under the bill. In conclusion, I repeat that I am opposed to the entire measure, which was born in iniquity.
– In speaking to the bill, I want to make it clear from the outset where I stand. I heartily support the measure., These are dangerous times. We are faced by a crisis, and I think that every honorable senator should declare where he stands because I feel that the people of Australia require us to do so.
– Where is the crisis?
– I shall come to that presently. Honorable senators who support the Government have made very dear where they stand in this matter, but I find it difficult to understand exactly where members of the Opposition stand. If we compare the views expressed by the first Opposition member to take part in the debate with those expressed by the last Opposition member who has spoken, we find that there is a great difference in those views. I took the trouble to write down their words. Senator McKenna said -
The particular purposes of the bill are, first, to destroy communism in Australia, and, secondly, to remove Communists from Impositions in trade unions and in the Public Service. With these particular purposes, the Labour party is in complete accord.
The last speaker, Senator O’Flaherty, said - “ I am opposed to the entire measure “. Other honorable senators opposite have expressed similar views or have given half-hearted support to the bill. All sorts of arguments have been advanced, such as the suggestion that we have not enough gaols to contain those who will be “ declared “ under the bill, and other criticisms have been put forward by members of the Opposition who half-heartedly support the bill. I support this bill because 1 believe that we are faced with a great national danger. A state of emergency exists to-day. “We have heard a lot of talk about the possibility of a “ hot “ war. Some people are even prepared to argue that there is no “ cold “ war at present. That is not for us to decide. The people of Australia have already made a decision. They made it at the last general election when they elected a Liberal-Country party Government to fight communism. Undoubtedly Russia’s objective is world domination. Senator Grant expressed it in a slightly different way. He spoke of Russian imperialism; but they are much the same. The fact remains that Russian communism constitutes a threat to our ideals and our way of life. The situation in the world to-day is akin to what it was in 1913 and in 1938. The present crisis is just as great as were the crises of those days.
– Who made it so?
– Russian communism. The responsibility does not lie with us. We are merely faced with the situation as it exists to-day.
– The Liberal party said all that 25 years ago.
– I base my statements on my own experience., although admittedly it is five years’ old. I had some contact with communism during World War II. When an honorable senator on this side of the chamber said in the course of this debate that he had fought with loyal men, Senator Hendrickson asked by way of interjection, “Did you not’ also fight with the
Commos ‘ ? “ I Iia ve fought with the “Commos”. For some time during World War II. I was commanding officer in southern Persia. The Russians were in northern Persia. For a while we lived side by side with them in Teheran, and I had ample opportunity to observe their way of life, and their standard of living. 1 saw, too, fear in their faces and in their actions. I saw the power that their commissars had over them and I knew that, although the Russians were fighting as our allies, they were set on world domination and the spreading of communism. Even when the war situation was very black and it seemed that within a few weeks we should be fighting side by side with the Russians in the Caucasus, they would not co-operate with us. They would not allow us to move into the positions in which they expected us in the near future to fight alongside them. They were afraid that their men would see the liberty that our men enjoyed. I know all those things from my own personal experience. There is much more that I could tell were I not bound by the Official Secrets Act. Incidentally, I remind the Senate that should the Official Secrets Act be contravened, the onus of proof is on the offender; yet I have not felt that act to be a very great threat to my liberty so far. I do not think that this bill will affect the liberty of any citizens of this country any more than the Official Secrets Act has affected it in the past. I once saw a Russian general shoot a Russian sergeant dead with his own revolver, on the spot and without a trial, for an offence which, if committed by an Australian sergeant, would have resulted in no greater punishment than the offender being confined to barracks for ten days by a. court martial.
– This bill does not deal with Russia.
– It deals with communism sponsored by Russia. It is aimed at Communists in this country who owe allegiance to Russia and are being pushed by Russia.
– And they are on the pay-roll of Russia,
– That is so. I was in India for some time before and after my period of service in Persia, and I can say without breaking the Official Secrets Act that the Russians established cells in our battalions and regiments which caused mutinies in furtherance of the Russian objective of world domination. Because of trouble stirred up hy Communists, while the Japanese were advancing through Burma we had to keep hundreds of thousands of troops in India when they should have been fighting the Japanese.
I know exactly where I stand on this bill, and I know from my own experience that there is a grave threat to this country. Amongst honorable senators opposite there are several who held ministerial rank only a few months ago. They must have had access to information, either on the same level or at a higher level than I had, and I am sure that in their hearts they appreciate the danger that is facing this country. In spite of the talk that we have heard from the Opposition during the debate on this bill, the main difference between us is on the method by which this menace should be dealt with. Honorable senators opposite know that there is a menace. My belief is that we should resort to every possible means to combat communism. Let us look at the Labour party’s policy. I agree with quite a lot of it. An important plank of Labour’s platform is that the standard of living of working people should be raised.
Opposition Senators. - Hear, hear !
– I, too, say “ Hear, hear ! “ to that. If honorable senators opposite will examine the policy of the Liberal party they will find that its aim is to raise the standard of living. We should like to have the assistance of the Labour party in achieving that end. The standard of living must be raised. That is beyond argument. Labour believes that communism should be fought in the trade unions. I concede that the trade unions are doing a very good job, but, after all, trade unionists do not number more than 50 per cent, of our population. Why should they alone have to fight the Communists? I should not have a very high opinion of any parliament or any government that refused to help the trade unionists in this fight. The Government seeks to assist the trade unionists through this bill. We believe that every section of the community should participate in the battle. Communism must be fought in every possible way. Another argument advanced by the Opposition is that the Government has enough power under existing statutes to fight communism. Mention has been made of the Crimes Act. I think that honorable senators on both sides of the House will admit that they would not favour the use of the Crimes Act, and the people of Australia adopt the same attitude. If the Government contemplated acting against communism under the Crimes Act, the uproar that arose after the introduction of this bill would be nothing compared with the public reaction that would follow.
A feature of the Crimes Act is that the onus of proof in most cases is on the individuals concerned, a,nd that is a principle to which honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber take the strongest exception. I shall quote an extract from a pamphlet entitled A Charier of Freedom which contains a report on “ a conference for democratic rights “ held in the Lower Melbourne Town Hall on the 22nd April, 1950. This is what Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick, secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties, said about the Crimes Act -
Since the political and industrial sections were inserted into the Crimes Act in 1926 and 1932, public protest has generally been sufficient to restrain Governments from daring to use its worst provisions.
Section 30a leaves a single judge, without jury, to decide if an association is unlawful. The onus of proof is on the association. A similar burden of proving innocence of membership of, or executive office in, an association declared unlawful, is placed on individuals, who may be penalized if they do not clear themselves. But how can I prove I am not a member of a party which has no records?
Section 30ab imposes a penalty of £100 or six months for not answering questions - that is, for refusing to be an informer against another person or an association involved. You are counted a member of an organization if since 1926 you attended one of its meetings or distributed its literature. A year’s gaol oi- deportation can be imposed for taking part in an industrial disturbance in interstate transport or in the government service.
Labour Governments were in office for eight years, from 1941 to 1949. The platform of the party provided for repeal of the political lections of the Crimes Act. The Council for Civil Liberties took the matter up with the Government, and Dr. Evatt said it was under review in May, 1947. Yet in July, 1947, Dr.
Evatt introduced the Defence Projects Protection Act, which embodied some of the worst features of the Crimes Act and wa.even more repressive.
That is what the Crimes Act provides with regard to onus of proof to which honorable senators opposite take so much exception. The onus-of-proof provision is contained also in many other acts including the Customs Act, regulations concerning taxation, the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act, National Security Regulations and numerous State acts. There is nothing new about it and if the onus-of-proof provisions is to be removed from this bill, it should also come out of many other acts which could have been amended in the past.
I invite honorable senators to consider how the declaration of a person will affect the man in the street. Speaking on this bill in another place, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) remarked on how few Communists there were in Australia and said that in Tasmania, at the last general election, only 80 persons voted for Communists. Therefore, everybody else in Tasmania has nothing to fear for his liberty, because I presume that most people who are Communists or supporters of communism would vote for the Communist candidates when there was no restriction on the way that they cast their votes. For the purposes of this bill and its penalties, everybody in Tasmania except 80 persons can be overlooked. If a man- is declared, he must be a Communist or not a Communist. If he is a Communist, he should be declared. That is the way to bring him out in the open. But if a man is innocent, all that he needs to do is to go into the witness-box and say, “I am not a Communist, I have never been a Communist, or, if I have been one, I am not a Communist now. I have not taken part in subversive activities and do not intend to do so in the future “. He must swear that on oath, and he should be able to produce without difficulty three men of repute to bear him out in his assertions. When he has done that, the onus of proof is at once transferred to the Crown. If the Crown does not produce the evidence, any judge would dismiss the case. if a person is a Communist, the Government would like to get him into the witness-box. Should an employee of the Government be declared and clear himself in the witness-box, he would certainly be reinstated and the same thing would apply to trade unionists. Senator Grant asked, in effect, during his speech, “ Where do you go after declaring a man? Take the case of Roach or Healy. If those men are declared, they would lose their job in the Waterside Workers Federation. What is to stop either of them from working in his ordinary capacity as a wharf labourer and spreading communism? Where do you go from there ? “ I ask Senator Grant where does he go in his plan to get rid of communism through the unions? If the union kicks a Communist out, apparently he is to be free to go round the wharfs spreading communism, whereas under this bill a man who went about preaching communism and sedition would be charged.. The onus of proof would be on the Crown, but when it was proved that the man had done what he was alleged to have done, he would be sentenced to five years’ gaol-
– Where does it say that in the bill ?
– It does say it. Senator Grant objects also to section 5 (1.) (d) of the bill and its reference to the principles or practices of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin. The honorable senator considers that Stalin and two or three others should be mentioned in the bill.
– I did not put it that way.
– We shall not argue as to how the honorable senator put it. I agree with him on the point, if he has any good ideas like that and puts forward amendments to that effect, they will be accepted with thanks. This is a fight against a real danger and a threat to the liberty of Australians. One or two innocent men might suffer as a result of this bill. Innocent men are liable to suffer ‘under any act. Some men who were innocent of the crimes charged against them have been hanged, but the mere chance of a few people losing their liberty cannot be considered when the liberty of a whole nation is at stake. I support this bill wholeheartedly.
– In opening my contribution to the debate on the bill before the chamber, I inform honorable senators that I am totally opposed to Liberalism, to fascism, and to communism. I believe in none of the three. I believe in democracy, and that is the policy enunciated by the Labour party to which I belong.
– I notice that the honorable senator puts the Liberals in the highest priority and the Communists in third position.
– If it suits Senator Maher better, I shall place the Communists first, the Liberals second and the fascists last, but I strongly oppose those three isms-
– What about socialism ?
– I believe in socialism, which has been preached and practised by the Labour party for more than 50 years.
– And it is a twin to communism.
– When the honorable senator says that socialism as preached by the Labour party is the twin brother of communism, she bringsto my mind the teachings that have been pushed into her little head since she has been a member of the party that she represents to-day. As communism i» supposed to be the objective of this bill, what is the position of the Labour party and those who support it? Most of the people of Australia voted for the Labour party in the last general election and those who did so believe in socialism. Had it not been for the insidious propaganda of those whom the Government represents, the Labour party would still have been in office.
This bill should be withdrawn. It cannot do the things that we hoped it would be able to do. It is not intended to dc them. I would support any measure that would rid Australia, and the rest of the British Commonwealth of Nations and other parts of the world of the Communist scourge, but this bill is not one to remove Communists from Australia because it preaches and claims that it will do exactly the same things as we object to the Communist party doing.
It is proposed in this bill to do the very same things as the Russians did. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), with all his oratorical powers, could not convince me that the Chifley Government would not have been able to deal effectively with the Communists in Australia. Let it be remembered that the Communist party in this country was founded when a non-Labour government was in office. Only a Labour government can remove the conditions under which communism has thriven. This legislation was promised by the present Prime Minister before the last election during a period of hysteria. It was drafted under the influence of hysteria, as is shown by the fact that already nineteen amendments have been made to it since it was introduced in the House of Representatives. The honorable member for Chisholm. (Mr. Kent Hughes) proposed that this legislation should- operate for a period_ of twelve months only. In my opinion, it will take more than twelve months to undo the mischief for which antiLabour governments have been responsible.
When introducing the bill in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister mentioned the names of men who, he said, were Communists, and officers of trade unions. The names had been supplied to him by the security service. Afterwards, he had to make a correction in respect of some of the persons named, but the damage was already done. They and their families might well lose their livelihood as the result of the mistake. They have suffered grave injury, which cannot be repaired by punishing the officers responsible. The fact that such a mistake was made is a further indication that the bill was prepared in haste, and without proper consideration. If a mistake is made in the case of only one man out of 100, an injury is done to him, and to society as a whole.
We have been told that this legislation was introduced because of the state of unrest that exists in the world to-day. If the bill is passed, the Communists in Australia will be driven underground. We should remember that, during the war, the French resistance movement operated very effectively underground, even though the country was under the iron rule of Hitler’s army. When “ D “ day arrived, the men of the resistance movement came out into the open, and were of the greatest assistance to the invading forces. If the Communists in Australia are driven underground, the authorities will lose track of them. As Senator McKenna pointed out, it is impossible to kill thought except by killing the thinker. Should war break, out, the Communists would be in the army with our own boys, probably opposed tothe Russians and could do great damage as saboteurs. But if they were allowed to remain in the open, and we know who they are when war breaks out, we can put them in their proper place, a detention camp, where they can do no harm.
Incidentally, we may be faced with a war very shortly because of the policy of the present Government in regard to Malaya. I understood the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) to promise, on behalf of the Government, that before Australian forces were sent to Malaya, the Parliament would have an opportunity to discuss the matter. That waa my understanding, but if I was mistaken, I am sorry. In any case, under our system of democratic government, the Parliament should be consulted before the Government sends any of our armed forces, whether of the Navy, Army or Air Force, to fight overseas in other people’s capitalistic quarrels.
This hill is essentially similar to the legislation enforced in Germany in 1934 under Hitler. The Minister for Trade and Customs, in his second-reading speech on this bill, referred to the report of Mr. Justice Lowe, who sat as a royal commissioner to inquire into the activities of the Communist party in Victoria. During the investigation, Mr. Justice Lowe was himself mentioned by one witness as a friend and fellow traveller of the Communists in Victoria. That may have been wrong, or it may have been right, but the fact remains that the man who was appointed to inquire into the activities of the Communist party was himself stated to have supported that party, or to have been a fellow traveller with Communists. The Minister for Trade and
Customs, in his second-reading speech, said -
You will remember, Mr. President, that when Communist wreckers declared war against the people of Australia and launched the coal strike last year the then Government took very drastic action against them.
We did take very drastic action against the Communists, but we looked in vain Cor any assistance from members of the present Government. We did not see any of them on the coal-fields.
– Was the honorable senator himself there?
– I was.
– No wonder it took so long to break the strike.
– The Minister for Trade and Customs stated further -
Speaking at that time nipon Communist tactics several Labour Leaders were reported -is having made some very pertinent statements. 1 shall quote views attributed to Mr. Chifley, Senator Ashley, the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, Senator McKenna, the Deputy Leader, and Mr. Calwell.
We were faced with an emergency, and we dealt with it. We brought in legislation to deal with the Communists.
– With the real offenders.
– Yes, with the offenders, and with them only, hut we saw that they were given a fair trial before a judge. Some of them were sentenced, and are still in gaol. They were dealt with as British subjects should be dealt with. We did the right thing, and because of that we have been criticized by the Minister for Trade and Customs.
– We thought that the Chifley Government was somewhat tardy.
– The Minister for Trade and Customs, when introducing this bill, raised the sectarian question. He had the audacity to quote passages from the report of an address by Cardinal Gilroy, including the following :- -
Communism is making total war on the democratic world and must be fought. Communism is the most insidious foe any democratic government has faced. Where Communism has been victorious it has meant unconditional surrender on the part of all - total subjection of the body and soul of man to the State.
Cardinal Gilroy described the Federal Government’s Anti-Communist Bill as a “ defensive measure, one of the means a. democracy must take when a Government realizes it is attacked by an insidious foe “.
That is what Cardinal Gilroy said, but let me quote from the statements of other clergymen. Archbishop Mannix is probably one of the greatest fighters for democracy, in season and out of season, that this country has ever seen. In the Melbourne Age, the archbishop is reported as follows: -
page 3683
Those who opposed Communism but were resisting the Federal Government’s AntiCommunist Bill, because of ils threat to liberty, were supported yesterday by Archbishop Mannix.
The Archbishop was speaking at the Federal Hotel to 300 University graduate and student members of the Newman Society.
He said he gave wholehearted thanks to the Government for the action it proposed to deal with the menace of Communism, but warned against interference with the individual, unions, and societies. “ Legislation of this kind is always dangerous,” he said. “It is intended to meet a special emergency, but in meeting it there is the danger that it may go too far, and that liberty, which we all prize, may be sacrificed.”
Dr. Mannix said he hoped there would be calm, deliberate, and wise discussion in Parliament, and that, if needed, the bill would be wisely amended.
And yet we are accused of wasting the time o£ the Parliament because we try to debate the issue fully in the interests of the people. From the Melbourne Argus, which is not a Labour paper, I quote the following which was published in the issue of the 31st May : -
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria became heated over criticism of Mr. Menzies, Prime Minister, during discussion of the Anti-Red Bill yesterday.
The Assembly was considering a motion which said that the Presbyterian Church should appose Communism, but should also warn the Federal Government that Communism could only be stopped by removing existing social injustices.
That is the opinion of the Presbyterian Church. The report continues -
The Rev. J. Priestly said : “ We can’t have an ordered democracy in Australia if we give way to hysteria and wild assertions such as marked the reported statement of the Prime Minister at a reception given by the Lord Mayor of Sydney in the Town Hall last Tuesday. “ He was reported to have spoken words to the effect that the Presbyterian Church would be dependent for its existence upon the support nf the Communist Party.”
This caused a murmur of disapproval throughout the Assembly.
The Prime Minister is prepared to say almost anything to bolster up a case that be knows has no logical foundation -
The Kev. J. E. Owen said that Mr. Priestly had misinterpreted Mr. Menzies’ remarks.
The Assembly resolved to “ re-affirm their opposition to materialistic and atheistic Communism, but warn the Government that only the most radical attempt to remove the injustices still prevalent in society can ultimately stem the advance of Communism, or other forms of totalitarian governments that feed on despair; “ And enjoin on the Government to ensure that necessary safeguards are adopted in the administration of the Bill, if enacted, to see that innocent persons are not harmed or prevented from giving such criticism that is necessary for healthy government;
The members of that conference were looking at this matter from the Christian angle. I ask honorable senators opposite also to look at it from that angle, and ensure that innocent people shall not be persecuted. The report concludes - “ Finally, remind Government and people that the basic necessity of our day is the reconciliation of the varying elements of our community, without which reconciliation no peace or security is possible.”
T believe that to be so.
Let us consider what a disgruntled member of the Liberal party, Mr. J. S. Lechte, has said about this measure. He was cast aside by his party because he had the audacity to say, in a State Parliament, what he considered to be right. Honorable senators” opposite say that they are not disciplined or told by the executives of their parties what they are to do and what they are not to do, but the Liberal party in Victoria decided that Mr. Lechte should be “booted out” of the party.
– I say to Senator Robertson that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The constitution of the Labour party i9 quite different from the constitution of the Liberal party.
– The Labour party did something similar in New South Wales.
– I say again to the honorable senator that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. If she waits and listens, she will learn that members of the party to which I belong are not disciplined by an executive body but by the people who constitute the party. There are branches of the Labour party in every city, town and hamlet in Australia. Each year, a federal conference of the party is held, at which the platform of the party is decided. The humblest members can say what they think should be in the platform. If a member violates the platform, we say that he is to be expelled, and then he is given an opportunity to, go before a conference or the branch of the party towhich he belongs and show cause why he should not be expelled. That cannot be said of: the Liberal party. I venture to say that some members of the Government parties have no idea how they were selected. They were certainly not selected by the rank and file of the Liberal party or the Australian Country party, because if the decision had been made in that way they would not have been selected.
– Who refused toendorse some members of the Labourparty in New South Wales as Labour party candidates at the forthcoming Stategeneral election?
– It was done by the central executive of the party in New South Wales. That is the governing body of the party in that State.
– The honorable senator has said that the Labour party had no governing body.
– A political party must have some kind of governing body to. control it between annual conferences. The central executive of the Labour party in New South Wales controls the party in that State. I point out to honorable senators opposite that we have not had to withdraw the endorsement of one of. our candidates becausehe was a Communist,’ as the Liberal party had to withdraw the endorsement of Mr. Hurley as its candidate for theWaverley seat in the New South Wales Parliament. I advise the Liberal party to examine the credentials of its candidates for seats in that Parliament, because it has endorsed an accredited member of the Communist party as its candidate for another State seat. He was not selected by the rank and file of the party. The Melbourne Argus of the 30th May contained the following report : -
Mr. J. S. Lechte, former Liberal M.L.A. for Oakleigh, attacked the Federal Government’s anti-Red Bill at the declaration of the Oakleigh poll yesterday. “ I didn’t’ think that I should live to see the day when a Labour Senate stood as the last bulwark of the principle of British democracy … If the Senate fails, I feel that I myself might be liable to interrogation by the security police.”
He would be, if Mr. Hollway had his way. He went on .to say -
I hope the Senate will fight, even to a double dissolution, the “onus of proof” clause in the bill.
– The honorable senator should go on to his next point. That is pretty weak.
– I believe that if Senator Guy had not been afraid of being dealt with in the same way as Mr. Lechte was dealt with, his secondreading speech on this bill would have been very different from that which he delivered last week. I believe that, in his heart and soul, he is still a democrat. The Sydney Morning Herald published a letter signed by 30 members of the University of Sydney, stating why they opposed this legislation.
I was rather alarmed when I arrived at my home last Thursday night. My wife handed me a copy of a newspaper and asked me to look at the front page, on which there was a photograph of Princess Margaret with the “Red Dean”.
– That is democracy.
– When a Labour senator met the “Red Dean”, honorable senators opposite said he was a Communist or a fellow-traveller. My wife showed me a newspaper photograph of Princess Margaret shaking hands with the “ Red Dean “. Long live the Princess! She believes in democracy.
The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), in his secondreading speech, referred to the case of a Chinese, Ah On. I do not know what relevance it has to this bill. Ah On was alleged to be a prohibited immigrant. He was not declared to be a Communist or a person engaged in undemocratic activities. All that he had to do to refute the allegation against him was to produce evidence that he had been born in Australia. The Government did not propose to put him in gaol or to deprive him of lis livelihood. It intended to send him back to China, which incidentally, is now under Communist domination. Under this measure the Government will be able to deprive the people of their civil liberties
– Why does the honorable senator say that the Government did not intend to deprive Ah On of his livelihood?
– In my opinion, every man’s livelihood lies in his country of origin until he becomes a naturalized subject of another country.
– For how long had he been in Australia?
– He would have had no difficulty in proving how long he had been here if he had wanted to do so. All that he needed to do was to produce evidence from any town, city or hamlet’ in which he had lived. That evidence would have been accepted, but he could not produce it. He was a prohibited immigrant.
The provision in the bill giving a declared person the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of a State was not included when it was introduced into the House of Representatives. Tt was inserted later because of the publicity given to its absence. Many other amendments have been made to the bill that would not have been made had the Labour party not taken a strong stand in relation to them.
– Is not that what an Opposition is for?
– I am opposed to communism. I am prepared to do all that it is humanly possible to do. to rid this country of Communists. I have been fighting them in Victoria and other States since 1930. Communism reared its head in this country in 1930, as a result of economic conditions for which anti-Labour governments were responsible.
The Minister for Trade and Customs, in the course of his second reading speech, said -
Statements upon this bill have been made which not unfairly could be well described as maudlin rubbish. In opposing provisions of the bill, it has been said that repressive measures have never suppressed an idea, and the survival of Irish nationalism has been quoted as an example. To such, I reply that throughout their centuries of struggle the Irish people were sustained by their devotion to their faith and their love of country. The Communist wreckers against whom this bill is aimed deny their God and are traitors to their country.
That may be so, but I remind honorable senators opposite that ideas cannot be suppressed unless the men who express them are killed. The Irishmen who were prepared to fight for their rights, their families and their country were given only token trials and were then transported. To mention some of them, they were Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, O’Sullivan, Meagler, Maher and 0’Neill. I hope that the Minister for Trade and Customs will read the book Speeches from the Dock and see what those men suffered when they fought the tyrants in England that we have had to fight through the ages. The conditions that we enjoy now were not created by the people who controlled the slave class or the working class, from which I come, 100 years ago in England. The men to whom I have referred were victimized and transported to Van Dieman’s Land because they had the audacity to say that they were entitled to some stake in the country of their birth, yet the Miniser for Trade and Customs has sneered at them and said that they did not have the same cause to fight for as we had. I hope that neither Senator Maher nor the Minister for Trade and Customs is descended from the Maher or the O’Sullivan I have mentioned. If they are, doubtless their ancestors are now turning in their graves.
The trade union movement and the Labour party of this country have been fighting communism for many years. I ask honorable senators opposite to tell me what they have done at any time to combat communism.. I believe that communism is bred by starvation, misery and poverty. Those conditions existed during the years of the depression owing to the actions of anti-Labour governments. All that the anti-Labour parties have done in regard to communism is to support it. In 1946, the Liberal party advised its supporters to give their preferences to a Communist rather than to Mr. Bryson, the Labour party candidate for the Bourke division. That cannot be denied. The Communists, in return, advised their supporters to give their preferences to the Liberal party candidate for Geelong, in order to defeat Jack Travers, the Labour candidate. Those are facts. The Liberal party in Victoria said, in effect, that it would rather have the fellow traveller or Communist who stood against Bill Bryson than a member of the Labour party to represent the electors of Bourke. All that the anti-Labour parties have done is to assist the Communists to establish themselves as a force in this community. Communism in Australia was born during the years of the depression, from 1929 to 1932. It is no wonder that any man who was dealt with as members of trade unions were dealt with in this country during those years should be somewhat sour. After the war of 1914-1S they built homes and tried to provide for their families. However, those homes were taken from them overnight. That is an example of the things that, have been responsible for the growth of communism throughout the world. I remind honorable senators, that in 1917 soldiers in the Russian armies ate raw fat and candles. The fear of starvation was very real. In such misery was communism born. It is true that the Russian tyranny was overthrown and that since the war not one shot has been fired but that is because the alleged democratic governments, of those countries have starved the inhabitants. I venture to say that not one country has gone “ commo “ under a Labour administration. The people of Australia would have been wise to return the Chifley Labour Government to power if they wanted to get rid of the Communists in Australia. If men and women are given social security they become good citizens. I consider that the bill is wrong in principle. It is not intended to do the things that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has told the people of Australia that he hopes it will do. If the right honorable gentleman bans the “ Comms “ he will lose a weapon that could be used against the Labour party. Even in 1924 the right honorable gentleman told the people of this country that if he was given a mandate to do so., he would wipe out the Communists. Although anti-Labour governments were in office from 1925 to 1929, and from 1931 to 1939, the “ Comms “ were not touched. Therefore, I claim that this measure has been introduced merely to fool the people. If it becomes law the Communists will merely be driven underground, and we will be faced with conditions similar to those that existed in Prance when Hitler’s armies invaded that country in the early part of World War. II.
Much has been said about interference with the trade union movement. As honorable senators know, the members of trade unions have the right to elect their officers, either annually or triennially according to the constitution of the union. During the depression, trade union secretaries were “ tuppence a pound “. Many members of this chamber will recall that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and the bosses took away from the trade union movement all of the things for which its members had fought prior to 1931.
– What was taken away from the workers?
– The margins were abolished and the basic wage was reduced to below a reasonable standard. At that time over 500,000 workers were unemployed in Australia.
– Is the honorable senator referring to the Premiers plan?
– Yes.
– But Labour was in office in four States.
– The honorable senator who has just interjected was a saboteur, who left the ranks of Labour and went across to the enemy, after climbing up on the sixpences and “ bobs “ of the workers. Yet he has the audacity to imply that Labour was responsible for those conditions. I remind honorable senators that the Government could not expect to extinguish in five minutes in 1929 a fire that was started in 1917. During the depression the “ Comms “ worked on the psychology of the poor people that were out of work and in effect said to them, “ If you select us for the leadership of your unions we will lead you to emancipation “. Before the outbreak of World War II. Communists were in control of most of the key unions in Australia. Because of the exigencies of war and shortages of man-power and material, each time they appealed to the court they obtained wage increases and better conditions for their members. Therefore it is no wonder that the rank-and-file members of the trade union movement still vote for Communists to be secretaries and leaders of the unions. The great Victorian Railways union polled 98 per cent, in favour rf Labour candidates. A Communist candidate would have lost his deposit. Most of the members of that union claim that, irrespective of Mr. Brown’s political beliefs, he is a capable union secretary.
– Is that why the honorable senn tor wants to protect him?
– Had it not been for the sane government of this country under the Chifley Government, thousands of workers in Australia would not be so well off financially as they are to-day. The railway workers claim that Mr. Brown handles their union affairs efficiently. Therefore they support him. The same applies to Mr. Healy, in the Waterside Workers Federation. I appeal to the Leader of the Government in the Senate to withdraw this bill and reinstitute the policy of the Chifley Government. By so doing the Communist element in Australia will be eliminated within eighteen months. If we have to face another world war very shortly - and we might - it would ‘be to our advantage to know who are the traitors in this country so that we could deal with them. They should not be forced into the Army with our children, where they could sabotage Australia’s efforts. Irrespective of the amendments that the Government proposes to move, this measure should be replaced by legislation that will afford Australia a reasonable opportunity to rid the country of a great scourge. I refer to the Communists. As president of the Trades Hall Council and a member of the executive of my union since 1930, 1 would whole-heartedly support such a measure. I am opposed to the clauses of this measure that my party does not favour.
– Honorable senators have beard quite a number of -speeches by members of the Opposition in relation to this bill. There appears to be no doubt that the Opposition is divided in its outlook. Some honorable senators opposite have told us that they are totally opposed to the bill as it stands. Others Iia ve said that they are in agreement with the principles of the bill, but object to certain clauses. Others say that, although they are against communism in this country, they are opposed to the method by which it is suggested the Government should rid us of this menace. We must get the actual provisions of the bill in a clear perspective. It has been introduced ro carry out the wishes of the people expressed on the 10th December last. In his policy speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) clearly undertook that, if elected to office, he would introduce a measure to combat the Communist influence in this country, and ban the Communist organization. In the first place, we have a clear indication that the majority of the people of this country desire some form of a legislative ban to deal with the Communist menace. Whatever attitude the Opposition takes, it must acknowledge the fact that we are carrying out the policy on which we were elected. It would also appear that the people of Australia recognize that a state of emergency exists. Communism is a menace throughout the world, although it is more apparent in other countries than in Australia. Although we have not yet felt the full impact of communism, our time will come sooner or later. It is in the light of such circumstances that we must approach the consideration of this measure. The real method of approach is that this bill deals with the security of the country. It is linked with considerations of defence. There is no doubt that if we agree, and i think that we must agree, that communism is a menace to the peace of the world, we must admit that it is a menace to the security of this country. This measure deals with the security and defence of Australia. That is my second point. Since the bill deals with the security :ind the defence of the country, how can any honorable senator dissociate himself from it?
As Senator Hendrickson, who has just spoken, pointed out many honorable senators have witnessed, not one but two world wars. In fact, some members of this chamber have witnessed the occurrence of three major wars, and a number of us have taken an active part in one or other of those wars. I feel that I echo the thoughts of the people when I say that we do not want another world war; That being so, we must not be like the ostrich and say: “ Everything is all right with our country “. We must take note of the trend of world events. Wherever we look we see countries which, if not actively engaged in war, are involved in the “cold war”. The picture is not a pleasant one. The doctrine of communism propagated by Russia is an everincreasing danger to the free countries of the world. We need only to look to the north of Australia to realize what is happening. Russia now dominates approximately 11,000,000,000 of the world’s population, and the number is increasing all the time. That is the background which we must keep in mind when dealing with the bill. Senator Hendrickson said that it is misery which breeds communism, and I do not think that any one will controvert that statement. We know also that Russia has fostered the development of communism in various countries. But is there any need for communism to develop in this country? In view of our high standards of living, our educational system, our civil liberties and all our other advantages, is there any justification for communism being tolerated at all in this country? I have no doubt that even members of the Opposition would immediately denounce any proposal to promote the development of communism in Australia. However, although our people would probably not turn willingly to communism, the fact is that Australia appeals very much to the Russian imperialists as a useful base for the propagation of Communist influence. That is where the danger lies. Whilst we may be complacent about the dangers of communism, we must realize that the Communists regard this country as a plum. We need only have regard to the tactics pursued by the Communists in one country after another. We know the way the Russians infiltrated various European and Asiatic countries. Recently we have had a good example of their methods in the struggle that has taken place in China. Class hatreds were stirred so that sections of the community came to regard other sections as traitors and oppressors. Employers were denounced as the exploiters of the workers. We can understand, in the light of that background, the reason for the attempts made to foster antagonism between different classes in Australia. The fostering of class hatred and distrust, the encouragement of strikes and the introduction of certain trouble-making techniques, such as the “ rolling strike “ on the waterfront, all conform to the Communist pattern of infiltration. Those tactics have been successfully pursued in other countries. I feci, therefore, that we have reason to fear the efforts of the Communists in this country, and that we must do something before it is too late. Whilst the efforts made by the Communists in Australia are probably not so advanced as those made in other countries, I remind honorable senators that we do not know die exact degree of Communist penetration of this country.
The bill proposes to attack Communists as it affects the safety of our country. It is designed to promote the interests of Australians-
– Why is it necessary? Similar legislation has not been introduced in other countries.
– The bill itself is probably as far ahead of the legislation of other countries as are the other measures that the present Government has introduced. Notwithstanding that the people of Australia enjoy a high standard of living, and have the greatest freedom that it is possible for a people to enjoy, we must face the fact that the Communists are seeking to undermine our standards of living and to destroy our freedom. For that reason we have to get rid of them. Members of the Opposition have indicated in their speeches that they are somewhat complacent about the danger of communism. In fact, they do not believe that there is any considerable danger. They are, apparently, prepared, to permit the Communists to obtain even greater ‘control as time goes on. The fact is that to-day many key unions are dominated and led by avowed Communists. That fact is well known, not only to members of the Parliament, but also to members of the trade unions. The acquisition of control of key trade unions follows the standard pattern used by Communists in other countries, and I have no need to remind honorable senators that that pattern has been remarkably successful. Shall we stand by complacently and say : “ The great key unions will gradually rid themselves of Communist domination “, and do nothing about it, or shall we say: “ We will give you a hand to get rid of this Red menace”? The passage of the bill, which I hope will receive the co-operation of Senator Grant and other honorable senators opposite, will assist the trade unions to rid themselves of the Communists, whose efforts are so intense at present-
– The bill will not help the trade unions.
– I do not think that Senator Grant is echoing the voice of members of the trade unions.
– I am merely repeating what they say.
– We are hearing the voice of the members of the small Communist executive which controls the trade unions, to which we have had to listen for so long, but we do not so often hear the voice of ordinary trade union members. Indeed, that fact was recognized, although belatedly, by the Chifley Government. The right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), who was Attorney-General and also Minister for External Affairs in that administration, had to introduce legislation to protect the guided weapons range project from Communist infiltration. He recognized the danger to that undertaking, and he had no compunction in introducing legislation to deal with that menace to our security. When that legislation was passed it had the effect of removing from association with the project all Communist-inspired trouble-makers, leaving only men and women who had been thoroughly “ screened “ by the security authorities. The right honorable gentleman introduced that legislation because he found that it was absolutely necessary to protect a vital defence project. The present Government finds itself in a similar position. Here again, it is a matter of protecting our country. We are following the pattern established by Dr. Evatt as the responsible Minister in charge of the security service of this country while the Chifley Government held office. Dr. Evatt realized that foreign agents were working against the security of this country. His sole aim was to ensure our security. That too is the aim of this bill. The Chifley Government’s action to end the coal strike last year, although belated, was another example of the Administration acting in the interests of the security of this country. The Chifley Government knew that there were saboteurs in this country whose aim was to disrupt industry. By means of advertisements in newspapers and posters on hoardings throughout the Commonwealth, that Government declared to the people of the Commonwealth that the coal strike was a Communist conspiracy. This Government does not intend to wait until the Communists act, as the Chifley Government did. Although Mr. Chifley knew that the Communists were planning last year’s disastrous strike he took no action until the strike had started. He did not take the Parliament or the people of this country into his confidence when he first learned that the strike was being planned. This bill will give power to the Government and through it to our security service to prevent the recurrence of such widespread disruption of industry. Some honorable senators opposite have dwelt on the happenings of 100 years or 150 years ago.
– The whole basis of this bill is the Marx manifesto.
– But we are dealing with present-day conditions.
– We are dealing with the teachings of Karl Marx.
– We are dealing with the manner in which the teachings of Marx are being given expression to-day. Honorable senators opposite argue that this bill will smash the trade unions. A press report that I happened to read last Friday gave some idea of what is happening in this country at present. The report stated that, at a meeting in Sydney, the miners, waterside workers, and seamen, had agreed to assist each other in their fight against this bill.
– Is that why the Government proposes to amend it?
– The bill will not be amended at the dictates of any Com.munistdirected industrial group. The Government may amend the bill to improve it, and to make it more workable, bat no amendment will be made at the behest of any Communist-inspired organization. I realize of course that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) is drawing a “red herring” across the trail, but I have been in this chamber long enough to know his methods. As I have said, the waterside workers, coal-miners, and seamen agreed at a meeting in Sydney to render mutual assistance in their campaign against this bill. The meeting carried a resolution declaring the bill to be the most far reaching attack on the fundamental rights and liberties of the working people of Australia in our history. The bill was designed, the resolution said, to smash the trade union movement in preparation for an all-out attack on the living standards of the workers by the coal barons, the ship-owners and other sections of big business. It was part of the preparation for a third world war, but united action by workers could defeat the bill and bring about the downfall of the Menzies Government. Reading that resolution one could be pardoned for imagining that it was an account of a speech made by an honorable senator opposite in this debate, because, word for word, that is what most Opposition speakers have said about this bill. Apparently these militant unions copied their resolutions from the speeches of members of the Opposition or honorable senators opposite obtained a copy of the resolution in advance so that they would know what to say about this bill. The three unions that I have mentioned are Communistdominated. No honorable senator opposite will deny that. The people of Australia have been warned by the executives of those unions that no ships will sail from Australian ports, no work will be done on the wharfs, and no coal will he won, if this hill is passed. That reminds me that, during the term of office of the Chifley Government, waterside workers in this country refused to load ships that were to sail to Netherlands East Indies ports and no ships sailed to those ports. T assure honorable senators opposite, however, that we shall not emulate the inactivity of the Chifley Government in the face of such a threat. “We shall ensure that ships shall sail from Australian ports, that cargoes shall be handled, and that coal shall be mined. During the ban on the loading of ships for the Netherlands East Indies, vessels were tied up at Australian ports for months, and even years, instead of carrying merchandise to various parts of the world in which it was urgently required.
I believe that rather than smashing the trade unions, this bill will save them. If the trade unions are smashed, they will be smashed not by this bill, but by communism. Trade unionism is being used by the Communists for their own purposes. “When the Communist objective lias been attained, the trade unions will be the first to go.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.
– Instead of this legislation smashing the unions it will assist to preserve those that are dominated now by Communists. The danger is that the trade unions will be used by the Communist party until it gains sufficient strength for its own purposes, and when that objective is achieved, the unions will be the first organizations to go. This measure will safeguard the trade union movement and the unions themselves.
I venture to say that the rank and file of unionists realize that. It is rather remarkable that only yesterday, when a 24-hours strike was proposed, the Communistdirected executive of the Transport Workers Union in Melbourne received a severe setback, inasmuch as the members of the union defied the executive. That indicates that the rank and file members of the unions are beginning to use their strength within the unions to depose the Communists who have gained a large measure of control. During the last few months that feeling has been gaining much strength among moderate trade unionists. There is no doubt in my mind that the moderate unionists feel that they have a govern- * ment in power now which will back them in reorganizing their unions. Previously, they did not have a government which would give them the support that they know they are getting now. I believe that the moderate trade unionists have every confidence, that this Government will give them every assistance in cleaning up the disastrous position that has been reached by some of the unions, particularly the key organizations.
The speeches of some honorable senators on the opposite side indicate that they have no intention of falling out with the Communist controllers of the unions. In one breath, they have said that they want to get rid of Communist control, hut they have avoided saying anything that would discount them in the eyes of the militant unions. The Government is searching every avenue to make this bill acceptable to the Opposition. The Government desires the full co-operation of the Opposition in this matter. It has made every endeavour to meet some of the requirements of the Opposition and to allay the doubts that have been engendered in the minds of some people in this country. Those doubts probably have been raised by members of the Opposition, and in many cases they are groundless, but in order to allay them, the Government will introduce into this chamber five amendments.
There has been quite a lot of discussion in another place and in this chamber regarding the declaration of a person. It has been said that two Ministers can constitute the Executive Council. It is suggested that a Minister might be a little liverish one morning and would get another Minister with him and they could go to the Governor-General and declare any person without further investigation. In theory, that could be done, but the Leader of the Opposition knows very well from his experience with the previous Government that no responsible government governs in that way. A responsible government is seised of its grave responsibilities, and would not act in the way suggested, although in theory it could do so. Obviously, the
Cabinet would have control, but to make the position more secure, an amendment has been forecast to provide that a committee of five persons shall be set up including the Solicitor-General, the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Director-General of the security and intelligence organization, and two others. One might be a retired judge, or a. retired public servant, but they would be persons in whom the people would have the utmost confidence. That small committee would investigate the evidence before a recommendation went on to Cabinet or the Governor-General that an individual should be declared.
I want to make it quite clear to the public that the responsibility for declaration will be treated very seriously as a Cabinet responsibility, and that the Cabinet will desire to have before it an objective statement of the material evidence collected by a group of responsible people such as I have mentioned.
– They would screen the list, would they?
– The honorable senator is quite aware that before an individual can be declared, some investigation must be made.
– But the individuals would noi be done singly; they would be done wholesale. Would they be screened?
– The honorable senator seems to know far more about it than I do, so it is of little use for me to explain to him what the Government intends to do. Apparently, he knows what the Government is going to do. The Government is trying to bring some reason and common sense into this debate, and, if possible, to meet the wishes of the Opposition in regard to the different clauses of this bill, but if the Opposition has already made up its mind that it will not accept any amendments or play ball, it is futile for me, or for any other member of the Government, to try to explain exactly what we desire and are prepared to do to meet some of the objections that have been raised.
There has been quite a lot of misconception regarding the onus of proof. Clause 9 has been the subject of contentious debate, both in another place and in this chamber, and the Government has been very concerned to establish that a person declared to be a Communist should be required to give evidence on oath if he wishes that declaration to be set aside. It proposes that if a declared person is prepared to enter the witness box, the onus of proof shall be upon the Government, but the person concerned must give evidence in person.
– He will be declared before he goes into the box?
– He must be declared before he can be brought up at all. If he is prepared to go into the box, then the onus of proof will rest upon the Government, but if he does not give evidence in person, the burden will be upon him to prove that he is not a person to whom the section applies. To a very large extent that meets the objections that the Opposition has raised that the onus of proof was being placed upon the person and not upon the Government.
– What is the honorable senator’s objection to going the whole distance?
– If a declared person is prepared to give evidence, the Government is prepared to accept the responsibility for the onus of proof, but if he is not prepared to give evidence, the onus is naturally upon the individual to show that he is not the man that he i3 declared to be.
– Why should he be declared before he is found guilty?
– A man must be declared first before he can be brought up. He is not found guilty until he is proved guilty. The next question that has evoked much criticism is. the period for which this measure will remain in operation. It has been suggested that it shall be in force for one, two, five, or seven years, and there is some merit, probably, in making it possible for the measure to be repealed at some future date. The Government does not agree that it could make the law operate for a set period of years, because no one can tell what the position will be in regard to the Communist menace in this country in one, five, or seven years’ time. It may be less or it may be more, but we believe that a future government should be able to have the legislation repealed when there is no longer any need for it.
– Is it proposed that the measure may he repealed by proclamation ?
– Yes, on proclamation by the Governor-General. That provision should meet the objections that have been raised. The Government is not devoid of common sense. If it can be shown a better way of doing what is desired, it is prepared to listen. Amendments have been brought forward in order to allay the suspicions, not only of the Opposition, hut also of the community, that hardship may be inflicted upon some people by the existing provisions in the bill. We hope that the Opposition will now co-operate with the Government.
Many well-intentioned people give support in some way to Communist doctrines. Some of them are good Christians and their support is theoretical only. Unfortunately, they do not understand the full implications of communism, or of how it has operated in Russia, and in the Russian satellite countries. In an interesting book called Behind Europe’s Curtain, John Gunther has written about t.lie liquidation of human values as we know them. At page 36 of this book, he says - . . Stalin is seeking to isolate the consciousness of the Soviet people from the living consciousness of humanity as a whole. . .- . There is your real Iron Curtain - the conditioning [of the Russian] into unquestioning and more or less painless acceptance of an intolerable state of affairs.
Devolving from all this are difficult questions in human values. An orthodox Marxist would say that the power and pressure of the great Communist Idea, that of an egalitarian economy destined in time to be operated by the people for the people’s good, with the disappearance of the state as such as an ultimate goal, is bound eventually to enhance such values. But they are certainly not enhanced at the moment. In fact most human values as we define them are being liquidated steadily. Consider - just to name one point - how the free intellect has been dispossessed. Another point is that nobody has much of a private life - which is indeed a lamentable hallmark of most dictatorships. Wise Communists recognize that the cost of their system is the sacrifice [they say ‘ temporary ‘ sacrifice! of human values: hence, it has become a minor tenet of the faithful to encourage love for the family and so on, as an effort to counteract other anti-social tendencies implicit in the system as a whole. f!231
It is clear, therefore, that the triumph of communism leads inevitably to the destruction of human freedom. The purpose of this bill is to safeguard Australia. Whatever our politics, that is our .primary concern. Members of the Opposition will show by how they vote on this measure whether they are really concerned with the safety of the country.
– The Government has claimed that it received a mandate from the people to ban the Communist party, and the Opposition does not propose to dispute that. However, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made his policy speech before the election, he did not indicate that the legislation to be introduced would be so wide in its scope as is this bill. For instance, he did not say that the onus of proof would be placed upon the accused ; or that, instead of the Crown having to prove that the accused person was guilty, the accused would have to prove that he was innocent. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has told us about the amendments which the Government will introduce. No doubt they will be helpful, but they will not remove some of the principal objections to the bill. Honorable senators will agree that the bill provides that a person may be declared if, in the opinion of the Governor-General, he is a Communist, or a fellow traveller with Communists; if he is, or is likely to be, engaged in subversive activities detrimental to the safety and welfare of the country; or if he supports or advocates the objectives, policies, teachings, principles or practices of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin. The bill provides that a declared person may appeal, but what exactly is he to appeal against?
– He may appeal against being declared a Communist.
– I am glad to hear the honorable senator’s interjection, because it bears out what I propose to say. If he is declared to be a Communist, he may appeal, and then the onus of proof will be on the prosecution, which must prove that he is a Communist. However, it may be that he will not be declared to be a Communist, but only a member of an organization that supports or advocates the objectives, policies, teachings. principles or practices of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin. In that case, be will have no right of appeal. He will be branded as a person engaged in subversive activities because of his associations with such an organization, but he will have no right of appeal. The Communist who is charged with practising communism is to be given the right of appeal, but a Communist would probably be proud to affirm his belief. On the other hand, the man who may be quite innocently associated with a declared organization is not to be given any right of appeal, even though charged with being engaged in subversive activities, and the foreshadowed Government amendments will not affect that situation a-t all. Such a man need not be a Communist, but he could be charged with being engaged iia subversive activities, or with being associated with an organization that was influenced by the doctrines of Marx and Lenin. I assume that even honorable senators opposite support the Commonwealth. Bank, in which every Australian citizen is a shareholder, and with the Postal Department, in which every citizen nas an interest. All of them support State railways and tramways, and are in favour of free education. Therefore, all of them are open to the charge that they support the principles of Marx and Lenin. My point is that the proposed amendment regarding the onus of proof does not satisfy our real objection to the provisions in the bill.
The Minister for Repatriation has said that no Labour Government has ever done anything to protect the trade unions of this country from’ Communist infiltration, and that it has been left to this Government to take the necessary action to do so. All that the Government proposes to do to protect the trade unions is to declare the Communist party to be an illegal organization and to prohibit Communists from holding office in unions connected with essential industries. That will not prevent Communists from spreading their poison, forming ‘cliques or causing stoppages. The banning of a, name will not hinder a man’s thoughts and actions.
The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), in the course of his second-reading speech on this measure, referred to the findings of the royal commission appointed by the Victorian Government to investigate the activities of the Communist party in that State. I point out that the Victorian Government at that time was a non-Labour government. The Minister read paragraphs 6 and 7 of the summary of findings on page 236 of the report of that commission. They are as follows: -
The Communist party regards itself as the vanguard of the working class and the spearhead of the movement bo overthrow the existing system.
It must be assumed that when a royal commission makes accusations of that kind, it has facts and evidence to support them. If the royal commission to which I have referred did not have facts and evidence to support those statements, then the report is in the nature of a frame-up.
– We believe it had.
– That being so, the Victorian Government had evidence before it that there was in that State an organization that planned to overthrow, by violence, the legally constituted government of the State. But it laid no charges ; it said, in effect, “ Go ahead “.
– What has that to do with us? We have our own ideas about how communism in this country should be dealt with.
– The Minister for Trade and Customs relied upon those passages from the report of the royal commission to support the action of this Government in introducing this bill. I~f the statements in the report he true, members of the Communist party can be charged with offences against the Crimes Act, and upon conviction for offences of the kind referred to in the report of the royal commission, they would be liable to the death penalty.
– The Crimes Act does not cover plans for the future.
– We must deal with the present as well as with the future. If some persons are undermining the security of this country now, and if there is upon the statute-book an act that can be invoked against them, ave we to allow them to continue their activities? Honorable senators opposite have stated that they believe the charges made against the Communist party in the report of the royal commission to be true. If they are true, some Communists have been guilty of high treason or of engaging in subversive activities against the State. The penalties that will be imposed upon Communists under the provisions of this measure are disqualifications from holding office under the Grown or in a key union. Under the Crimes Act, the penalty of high treason is death. Under this measure, the penalty that will be imposed upon a member of the Communist party will be the same as that imposed upon a fellowtraveller, who may not have engaged in subversive activities. One man has been guilty of high treason, if we believe the Minister for Trade and Customs-
– If we believe Sir Charles Lowe.
– I arn accepting the statements that have been made by the Minister and his colleagues about the subversive activities of the Communist party. Surely they do not deny them now.
– Not at all.
– Honorable senators opposite have claimed that the report of the royal commission, is supported by facts. Therefore, on their own admission, there are men in this country who could be charged with treason or with, offences against the Crimes Act.
– What is stated in the report of the royal commission is that the body or the association has been guilty of various acts.
Senator- AYLETT. - The body is composed of individuals.
– We want to- bang the body.
– There are approximately 14,000 members of the Australian Communist party. The AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) has admitted that every one of them is guilty of what Sir Charles Lowe has stated.
– I did not say that. I said the organization was guilty.
– If the body is to be convicted, then the members must also be convicted.
– Does not the honorable senator consider that the body should be abolished?
– I am not arguing that it should not be abolished. I admit that the Government has a mandate to ban the Communist party. What I am trying to show is that the operation of this measure will not prevent the Communist party from carrying on its subversive activities in the industrial organizations of this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and his colleagues have given much consideration to this. bill. I know that the Government wishes it to be passed by the Parliament, and Ave desire to assist its passage, but only in a form in which it will be of benefit to the community and will not put us back to the year 1200, before the signing of the Magna Charta, when men could be imprisoned without trial. It cannot be denied that this bill, despite the amendments that have been, made to it in the House of Representatives, provides for the imposition of the penalties without trial.
– What does the honorable senator propose should be done to make it more effective ?
– That will be disclosed in the committee stage.
The Minister for Repatriation has stated that the Labour party has done nothing to protect industrial organizations in this, country from the Communist menace, although he has also said that the action of the Chifley Government during the coal strike represented a very belated attempt to do something in that regard. Can the Minister tell me of any Australian: government other than the Chifley Government that has taken any action against Communists in Australia? The Chifley Government caused charges to he laid against Communists for making subversive statements,, and those Communists were subsequently imprisoned. It was also responsible for the passage of the emergency legislation that smashed’ the recent coal strike.. The Minister is-‘ aware of those facts, but he does not like to admit them. He knows that the only government that has ever faced the issue of communism is the Chifley Government. The Minister believes that Communists have been guilty of subversive activities and acts of treason, but, although the Government of ‘which he is a member has been in office for six months, and although there is legislation on the statute-book under which those Communists could* be prosecuted, it has done nothing at all to bring them to justice. There has been a lot of talk about what the Government will and will not do with the Communist party. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have stated that this measure is designed to smash the trade unions, and I am inclined to believe that honorable senators opposite are now becoming a little frightened that the bill will, if they are not very careful, destroy the Government. I hope they realize that if we go back to the year 1200-
– Too far.
– I know it is too far, and that is why I am protesting against it. We must advance, and not go backwards. Oan honorable senators opposite tell me of one newspaper that supports the Government upon the provisions in this measure relating to the onus of proof? The foreshadowed amendments will not remove the obnoxious part of those provisions.
– The Queensland press is behind the Government on the onus of proof provisions.
– I deny that. If there are any newspapers in Queensland that support the Government on this matter, they must be newspapers that Senator Maher knows something about, of which we shall hear something later.
The Minister for Repatriation has stated that a committee of five members is to be established to consider allegations made against individuals or organizations before declarations are made by the Governor-General ‘ in Council. The evidence submitted to that committee, if it is established, will be that of peace officers or security police-
– Or pimps.
– I do not say that all those who furnished information to the committee would be pimps, but doubtless some of them would lay them selves open to that charge. The peace officers or security police will be stationed in various parts of Australia, from which they will forward their reports to the committee. The committee will make its decisions only upon information furnished to it by the investigators. The members would not, as individuals, check the accuracy of the information. I cannot see that there would be very much difference between a case being decided by the committee or by the Attorney-General, because the committee would have no more evidence at its disposal than would the AttorneyGeneral. The measure will provide opportunities for peace officers to “ frame “ people, if they so desire. It will be necessary at the outset to have an army of peace officers, and as time goes on and some of the peace officers find that it is difficult to keep themselves fully employed legitimately, they will begin to pimp rather than lose their jobs. That is where the danger lies, and that is why the onus of proof should be upon the Crown. It is easy to say that it is not likely that an innocent person will be declared under the measure, but I remind the Senate that in 1940, in this chamber, Senator McLachlan accused a Mr. Hoare of being a Communist. He made a speech in. this chamber about this outlaw Communist. Mr. Hoare, the then .president of the miners’ federation, was never a Communist. In fact, he fought communism. Yet that charge was made against him. The Prime Minister of the day made similar charges in another place. That indicates that peace officers, or members of the security service, do not always supply hard cold facts, and that mistakes can be made.
– They have been made in the past.
– Our concern is that they may be made in the future. Any man declared should have the opportunity to prove his innocence. Every man should have the opportunity to prove that he does not subscribe to the doctrines of Marx and Lenin and that he is not likely to engage in subversive activities. I should npt waste my time replying to some of the speeches but for the lies contained in those speeches.
– Is the honorable senator looking into a mirror?
– If I were I should see the honorable senator’s face. Senator Maher, in his speech last week, said that the extreme elements always dominate Labour conferences. As a member of the executive of the highest governing body of the Australian Labour party in Australia I have attended executive meetings for many years. I have also attended every triennial federal conference during the last twelve years and every State conference in Tasmania except one during the last fourteen years. I cannot recall any act such as the one that Senator Maher has alleged has taken place.
– The honorable senator should have a look at the minutes of the last conference that he attended.
– I have studied the minutes in detail. I also took a very active part in the debate.
– Does the honorable senator deny the truth of the resolutions that I claim were passed in north Queensland?
– I give a bold denial to Senator Maher’s accusation that there is any cohesion or alliance between the Communist party and the Labour party. Senator Maher was definitely wrong in his assertion. He knows that what he said was a contemptible lie.
– I rise to order. I ask that Senator Aylett’s statement that I was guilty of a contemptible lie during my speech should be withdrawn because it is not parliamentary and is personally offensive to me.
- Senator Aylett should withdraw the remark.
– If Senator Maher considers that I was referring to him as a contemptible liar I withdraw the remark. The honorable senator knows full well that it was a lie. He knew that it was a lie when he said it.
– I again rise to order. Senator Aylett is making the same statement in a different manner. He has implied that I did not tell the truth in my address last week. That statement is offensive to me. Therefore I ask that it be withdrawn.
– I ask Senator Aylett to withdraw the remark.
– What remark is it intended that I should withdraw, Mr. President ?
- Senator Aylett said that a statement that Senator Maher made in his address last week was a lie. If a man makes a statement knowing it to be a lie he is a liar. As the language was unparliamentary, I ask that it be withdrawn.
– I withdraw the remark. Senator Maher also said that there was a natural affinity between the Labour party and the Communist party. Again I say that he was completely wrong, and that anybody who knowingly made such a statement must be a liar. Senator Maher also referred to the appointment of Communists to the Stevedoring Industry Commission and other commissions and boards. The honorable senator’s statement that the Government appointed the employees’ representatives on those boards was a lie. They were appointed by the employees and by nobody else.
– The honorable senator should read the act.
– The employees appointed their own representatives to the Stevedoring Industry Commission.
– I refer the honorable senator to section 11 of the act.
– If an act of Parliament establishes a commission comprising two employees’ representatives, two employers’ representatives, and two government representatives, and the Government appointed all six, that would be no more democratic than is the onus of proof clause. That is why the employers, the employees and the Government each appoint their two representatives. The former Government did more to protect the interests and economic stability of Australia and to smash Communistinspired strikes than any other government has done.
– What about the coal strike ?
– Order ! I point out to Senator Wood that interjections are disorderly. It is not part of Senator
Aylett’s duty to answer disorderly interjections.
– I think it must be agreed that no government, either in the State or the federal field, has done as much to assist industrialists as did the former Chifley Government. Senator Maher stated last Thursday that the Curtin and Chifley Labour Governments consisted of cowards. I resented that remark very much, and I smarted under it at the time. I hate to hear anybody reflect upon the dead, particularly when the dead man gave his life in the interests of the advancement of this country., Mr. Curtin was just as much a war casualty as men who lost their lives on the battlefields during the war. Yet Senator Maher referred to him as a coward.
– That is untrue. I referred to governments, not to the late Mr. Curtin personally.
- Senator Maher stated, in effect, that Mr. Curtin was sabotaged even by his own supporters in the Government.
– Quite right, too.
– That is the kind of interjection that I would expect from a member who was put out of the Queensland Parliament for “ jobbing “ a man on the floor of the House.
– In that case the honorable senator had better be careful.
– If a man were guilty of such acts as that, he would be guilty, not only of saying what I have accused him of saying, but also of meaning it, when he said it. Neither should we expect anything better from a man who was fined £25 for contempt of court during an election campaign. Doubtless when Senator Maher next speaks in this chamber he will furnish the Senate with details of those acts.
– The honorable senator should be very proud of himself.
– I have always adopted the attitude of protecting a man who is not here to defend himself, and who did a better job during the war period than men who were not here, and who have slated him.
– I did not slate him personally.
– If a man throws bricks he cannot expect that I shall throw feather pillows back. If the Government wants the Opposition, to expedite the passage of this bill through this chamber, its supporters should refrain from casting insinuations agains honorable senators sitting in opposition.
– I support the bill with all the earnestness which I possess because I believe that we should make a grave mistake if we underestimated the strength of the Communist party. We should also be making a mistake if we believed that communism was just a political philosophy, as was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley). If it were just a political philosophy, we could debate it, and it would not harm any one. I very much regret that in this chamber and in the House of Representatives the real importance of this legislation has been distorted. Members of the Opposition have definitely refused to face the facts as they are. Quite a lot has been said about what constitutes the basic theories of communism as expounded by Marx and Engels, and whether the Communist party came into being in Australia in 1920 or in the years of the depression. I remind honorable senators that it is just 102 years ago that a foreigner in London commenced to write the Communist manifesto. That foreigner was Karl Marx. He began that work with these words, “A spectre is haunting Europe “ ; and I say that 102 years after he wrote those words the spectre of communism is haunting the whole of the civilized world. Communism is not an abstract political theory; it is a matter of national and international political, social, industrial and ideological importance of the greatest magnitude. It has a direct bearing on the life of every citizen, because unfortunately its aim is destruction. The report of the royal commission that was recently appointed in Victoria to inquire into the activities of the Australian Communist party includes a quotation from a Communistic manifesto which states -
In short, the Communists everywhere will support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political orders.
Another passage of the report states -
The Communists do not deign to conceal their views to-day. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
The Australian Communist party is only one section of an international secret society. It admits of no allegiance to Australia, and, as was pointed out by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), the constitution of that party seeks to withdraw Australia from the British Commonwealth of Nations and to re-aline it, in the terms of the Communist manifesto, with the “ peace-loving progressive forces of the world, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics “.
Senator Nash said, during the course of his remarks, that there was no immediate prospect of war, and he endeavoured to support his contention by reading an extract from a newspaper. In the light of existing world conditions only a very bold person would dare to prophesy the possibilities or contingencies oi” either a “ cold “ war or a “ hot “ war. Senator McCallum dealt extensively with the international activities of Russia, and the infiltration of Europe and Asia by communism. However, in reply to the very rash statement that there is no immediate prospect of war, I should like to add another thought. I remind honorable senators that in 1948, President Truman and Mr. Attlee were told by competent observers that Russia would have possession of the atomic bomb by 1.949. However, those two statesmen preferred to disbelieve what they were told, feeling certain that Russia would not acquire atomic strength before 1957. It is now a matter of history that they were wrong in their estimation of the preparedness, or the increasing preparedness, of Russia for war. Very recently, the Government of the United Kingdom announced the most extensive defence preparations in British history. General Eisenhower is recorded as having said that disarmament in America had already gone beyond the limit of safety. In our own newspapers to-day, we read that the Australian Government is pushing on with its defence programme. “We would be most unwise if we prepared to defend our country from assault without, but refrained from dealing with the traitors inside. Senator Aylett, who is not present in the chamber at the moment, twitted Senator Maher by saying that no Queensland newspaper is in favour of the “ onus of proof “ provision in the bill.
– Is any Queensland newspaper in favour of it?
– A Victorian newspaper is in favour of it.
– Is it the Argus?
– No, it is not the Argus. An article in the newspaper to which I refer states -
The Bill does not propose to stop any one else from being a Marxist, a Leninist, or from persuading any one else to accept that pernicious philosophy and social doctrine. It proposes to suppress a political movement organized for treason and social sabotage under the direction of a foreign power, and to adopt adequate measures for removing those associated with it from certain positions where they can disrupt the nation’s economic life or endanger its defence. If this aim is disapproved, let those who disapprove it make their position clear; . if they deny the menace let them justify their denial in face of facts known to all. But if the aim is good and the danger is real, then the method must obviously be an efficacious one - and the emergency justifies exceptional measures for the security of the State against public enemies. No reasonable design of “liberties” includes criminal perrons or organizations in its protective scope.
– In what newspaper did that article appear?
– It appeared in the Melbourne Tribune. Turning now to the political and industrial aspects of communism, which are linked together, I make a special reference to the training manual of the Communist party. That document lays down quite clearly that the struggle for power by the Communists is not to be made inside the Parliament. Many honorable senators opposite have stated that there are not many Communists in the Parliaments of Australia. That may be so, but the Communist party’s training manual lays down specifically that the centre of gravity of the struggle shall be outside the Parliament. The Communists go further and say that the struggle will be waged through strikes and “ any other form of mass struggle “. I remind honorable senators now that it was Senator
Cameron who said that strikes are “ the natural and inevitable reaction to suppression and exploitation “.
Opposition Senators. - Hear, hear!
– I am glad to hear honorable senators say, “hear, hear ! “, because Senator Cameron’s remarks are probably only a refined version of what Ernest Thornton meant when he said -
We have planned strikes because we have made strikes our business.
– Strikes were first introduced to Australia from England.
– That viewpoint is in sharp contradiction with the view recently expressed by An emin Bevan, who stated -
I have probably led and fomented more strikes than anybody here; but there is a time for everything, and this is not the time. Minority claims and struggles are not justified when they are carried to the point of imperilling the nation’s welfare.
The most cogent argument put forward in favour of the legislation came from Senator Grant, and I took a careful note of what he said. I am sorry he is not present now to hear me, because I propose to quote his words. He said -
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 commend Senator Grant for his sense of realism, although I disagree with him. However, I propose to quote another passage from his speech -
The only way in which the Communist party can lie fought, and fought to a finish, is in the trade unions. This is a matter primarily for the trade unions to settle.
Let us see how the unions are settling strikes. A one-day stoppage occurred in Victoria this week, notwithstanding that the Australian Council of Trades Unions, speaking for all unions, decided that a protest against the bill should be on a political and not on an industrial level. Did that stop the impudent minority? No. After the railway men had decided by a majority of twelve to one against a strike a certain resolution was adopted by the executive of that union, and in consequence the people of Victoria had no trains for one day’ and railway em ployees lost a day’s wages. An article which appeared in a recent newspaper summed up the position as follows: -
The Secretary of the Trades Hall Council (Mr. J. V. Stout) said unions taking part in the stoppage were harming the Trade Union Movement. “ Instigators of the stoppage are disloyal and unworthy and are anarchists betraying the Trade Union Movement,” he said.
I should have imagined that instead of honorable senators alleging that the bill was an attack on the trade union movement, they would recognize it as a measure to enable the trade union movement to clean itself up from within. Senator Hendrickson said that the unions have a right to elect their own office bearers. No one disputes that right; what we say is that they have no right to elect to office men who are declared enemies of Australia. I shall refer now to a passage in The Trade Union Movement which was written by Sharkey, the well-known Communist, in which he states -
The trade unions are the most important mass organizations of the working-class, and they, therefore, have a special importance to the revolutionaries. Without the trade unions, a revolution is impossible.
At the present time, the strength of the Communist-dominated unions is about one-third of the strength of the whole trade union movement. If any member of the Senate wants a better demonstration of how a minority can obtain complete sway over a majority he need only look at the Ear East, where, at the present time, a Communist army of 3,000,000 people has almost completely subjugated 475,000,000 people. In one province alone, where there were 20,000,000 people before the Communist occupation, there were only 14,000,000 when that occupation ended. In addition to striking. Communists have made killing their business. Senator Murray said that in the world to-day there were two philosophies - the Christian and the totalitarian. Earlier in my remarks I referred to the ideological aspect of communism. I agree with Senator Murray, and I believe that the danger is greatest at the ideological level. Communism is an ideology of materialism, conflict and hatred, and complete lack of consideration for human life. The Communists preach a doctrine of atheism.
Even 102 years ago, when Karl Marx wrote his manifesto, he omitted the cornerstone of European civilization, a belief in God.
I conclude by saying that this Parliament has a grave responsibility. I am confident that wiser councils will prevail, and that the Opposition will not be negative towards this measure but will assist its passage. Honorable senators opposite will realize, I am. sure, that Communists are traitors and that it is the duty of the Australian Parliament to remove their influence from our midst.
.- The bill now before the Senate does not bring the aims of world communism into dispute, because there can be no doubt about them. Events immediately prior to 1939, the ultimate battle between Germany and Russia on the eastern front, the inexplicable things that Russia has done in the United Nations, and many very informative books, leave little room for a quarrel with Senator Wedgwood’s words to-night, or for doubt about the ideological line-Tip in the world to-day. However; I should like to bring this discussion back to the bill now before the Senate. This hill does two things. First, it bans the Communist party. Secondly - and perhaps more important - it sets up machinery to deal with organizations and individuals suspected of having or having had association with the Communist party. The important point is that whereas the bill itself bans the Communist party, in relation to the other matters with which it deals, it merely empowers the Government to do certain things. Where does Labour stand on the two purposes of this bill? We have not raised our voices in protest against the proposal to ban the Communist party, nor ha,ve we sought to amend the provisions of the bill relating to the imposition of that ban. Our criticism of the bill is confined to that section of it which constitutes the machinery for the “declaring” of certain individuals and organizations. That machinery includes penal clauses and others which, although not prescribing penalties, will stigmatize a “ declared “ person. In relation to this part of the hill, we have proved by the amendments that have been moved by the Opposition in the House of
Representatives, and hy press statements that have been issued on the matter, that we have a very definite quarrel with the Government. I repeat, however, that the Opposition has no illusions about the Communists. The Australian Labour party knows only too well that should the Communists ever gain the hold in this country that they seek the greatest damage will be done, not to the chambers of commerce, the chambers of manufactures, or private companies, but to the great trade union movement. The Australian Labour party is an industrial party that has risen from the masses of the industrial people. We fully realize that the industrial side of the Australian Labour party would be the first to be injured in a Communist dominated Australia. Men of my age in the Australian Labour party were born into it during the struggle against communism. I remember when my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Nash, who then held a high office in the trade union movement, was vilified by the Communists. The Labour party took a stand with Senator Nash on that occasion. It is rather galling when we hear people tell us that we do not know anything about the menace of communism and have never fought the Communists. We were fighting the Communists when the present Government parties were only fighting amongst themselves. We are still fighting Communists because it is our interests that they seek to capture. It is Labour men whom they vilify. In the last few weeks members of the Australian Labour party have had to stand up to the barrages of the Communists. Because this Government was elected to office by the people of Australia on the 10th December, and because it believes that the Communists can be best dealt with by banning the Communist party, we on this side of the chamber do not protest against that proposal. Our opposition in the past to the banning of the Communist party has been based on our belief that banning would be ineffective, and that the menace of communism in industry can be best handled by the trade unions. However, the people of this country have made their decision and
Labour will not oppose the banning of the Communist party. We have taken a firm stand on the other proposals contained in this measure, and we are pleased that, on two occasions at least, the Government has listened to the voice of experience from the Australian Labour party and has written into this bill amendments that will, to some degree at least, preserve the rule of law which the Government parties have gone close to wrecking. Senator Armstrong, because of his experience of governmental administration, was able to point to the administrative weaknesses in this bill. His strongest point was that the administration will not rest solely in the capable hands of the Attorney-General. That is a physical impossibility. Obviously, he could not handle every detail of administration throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, two dangers arise. The first is that mistakes may be made, and shortly, I shall give an illustration from my own experience of how mistakes can occur. The second danger is that personal venom may result in a miscarriage of justice. Because of illfeeling a person may pass on to the Attorney-General a file containing false information about an innocent individual. In these circumstances the AttorneyGeneral could not avoid administrative errors. Speaking in this chamber on the 22nd April, 1940, Senator James McLachlan said -
We have heard a good deal about the menace of communism. Doubt seems to have arisen in the minds of certain honorable senators as to where the Communists are, but we need have no further doubt upon the matter. A non-Communist Labour party hae recently been formed in New South Wales, and this surely shows where the Communists are to be found. Senator Keane referred vaguely to this matter. He said that there might be a few Communists here and there, but he was not sure about it. He cited the Corio by-election as furnishing an indication of the power of the Communists in Australia.
He went on to mention a Mr. Hoare on the northern coal-fields of New South Wales. Later Senator Ashley said in reply-
Senator James McLachlan amazed me by his attempt to link the Opposition with the Communist <party. I had always regarded him as a paragon of virtue, but I must confess that I have now been disillusioned. I was astounded to hear him indict the Labour party un that charge. He seemed to confuse Mr. Hoare with Mr. W. Orv, the secretary of the miners’ organization. Mr. Hoare, the president of the Northern Coal Miners Association, has never been a Communist, and has been fighting Communists practically all his life.
That shows how a grave mistake can be made owing to a similarity of names. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) himself, in his second-reading speech on this measure made five mistakes in listing the names and union offices of 50 “ ace “ Communists in this country. I am reminded, too, of something that happened to my former senior officer a couple of years ago. A large number of employees were being brought into the department, and the usual “ vetting “ was carried out. An officer went to the Criminal Investigation Bureau to check on the records, if any, of the new employees. Ohe man was suspended because he had a criminal charge on his record. However, two months later when my immediate superior was going through the names, he thought that the employee concerned must have been remarkably young when the charge was made against him. He checked up and found that he had suspended an innocent man whose father, who had the same name, had a criminal record. He said, “ This is one injustice that we can put right. This is the second time I have done this. On a former occasion I suspended a man because he had a criminal record, but I found out later that the record belonged to his brother. I put that right, too, but what I often wonder is how many men have been suspended by mistake and not reinstated “. I cite that incident merely to show that mistakes can be and are being made in the Public Service. It shows how careful the authorities will have to be in declaring a man to he a Communist and a menace to his country. There is no doubt that this legislation will open the way for the terrible venom of the poison pen writer which unfortunately works in so many places. I have seen letters that have been written about officers in the Public Service. On one occasion I saw a letter that had been written about myself suggesting that I was not a fit person to be in the Public Service, simply because I had contested an Australian Labour party pre-selection.
Anonymous letters and a signed letter were received on that occasion.
Even before this bill was mooted, an attempt was made to plant Communist literature on people and so attach to them the slur that the word “Communist” has brought on the Australian people, particularly in the last decade. From time to time, efforts have been made by Public Service organizations to do away with secret reports because of the harm that they can do, not entirely because of venom but because some senior officer honestly believes that a junior officer in a certain department should not advance. He may think it would not be in the best interests of the Service or that the man would not be fit to be in charge of men. If this bill is allowed to continue, that practice will be on a much more severe scale than before.
I have been amused to hear Government members one by one close their speeches by saying, “I whole-heartedly support this bill in its entirety “. I put a fair question to them. Would they have used that phrase if the original bill that was introduced by the Prime Minister in another place had been brought before this chamber without the proposed five amendments? Which bill do honorable senators on the Government side support in its entirety? Were they talking about the bill that the chamber was debating this afternoon? In the press this morning, I read that there was to be no stepping down on the onus of proof. This afternoon honorable senators find that there has been an alteration.
– Five alterations.
– That is correct. There have been five alterations. Which bill do honorable senators support in its entirety? Is it the first one that was introduced before the Opposition indicated that it would move certain amendments? Or do they support the second bill or the third bill which will include the amendments that presumably are to be moved to-morrow? I suspect that some of these proposals are not so vital and that maybe, unfortunately, they have a political flavour. The first bill included the right of entry which honorable senators on this side of the chamber criticized so trenchantly. Under that provision, an unknown peace officer or anybody else the AttorneyGeneral named could break down a front door, search the house whether the owner was in or not even if there were only impressionable children in the place. The officers could take away any documents. Would the honorable senators on the Government side have supported that provision had it come before this chamber and if the Opposition had not amended it?
The people of Western Australia were particularly interested when they noted that it was provided that a case could go only to the High Court. That meant that anybody in Western Australia who was declared would have to travel over 2,000 miles by air or train together with witnesses whose fees he would have to pay, if he decided to defend the case. If he escaped the trap, he would have to pay their fares back without any recompense. Were honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber planning to support that provision? I suppose they will continue to say that they support the bill in its entirety, although five amendments have been added.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that the next time he introduces a bill as important as this one, he should take his own party into his confidence and try to bring before the Parliament something that shows common sense and decency, and not so many fascist tendencies. When the right honorable gentleman brought this bill down he said, “ There will be no amendments to this legislation “. This morning he said that there would be no amendments to the onus of proof clause but in the afternoon an amendment was foreshadowed. It is not fitting that a man in his position should say one thing early in the morning and change his mind in the afternoon.
Two sets of people in the community have been singled out by this bill. I happen to have been a member of both sections. One is the trade union movement and the other is the Public Service. I suppose the Government believes it has the best of reasons for doing that. Under this legislation every trade union officer in Australia whether in a vital union or not and every public servant will retain his job at the pleasure of the Government in office. It has been thi proud boast of every public servant that regardless of what government was in power, he could cast his vote on polling day and carry out the policy of the government afterwards irrespective of whether he agreed with it or not and that he need not fear losing his job. If this bill is passed in this form, that boast has gone forever. It is a great pity.
The Attorney-General was very naive when he said that no penalties were attachable to a person who was declared. In effect, the Minister said a person would merely be declared a Communist or one who was plotting against the security of the country; but whether the declared person was a public servant or a trade union officer, he would lose his job. Anybody in the community could be declared and thereafter he would be unable to hold a. job in either of the two organizations that I have named. This bill involves not only the people who could be named. It carries an everlasting threat that a government would be able to say what appointments a person could hold. The sword of Damocles would be suspended continually over his head.
It would not be difficult to name a Communist under this bill. A person need only to be influenced by the teachings of Marx and Lenin and he could be declared. If an officer were to say to a members of the Australian Labour party, “ Do you believe in socialism ? “, and if the answer were in the affirmative, would not that coincide with the teachings of Marx and Lenin? Or a person could be asked, “ Are you against sending troops to Malaya ? “ If the reply was in the affirmative the person who was questioned could be regarded as being opposed to the security of the country.
One of the dangerous features of this bill is that it touches something beyond the tangible. The progress of any country comes from those people who are possessed of what might be called a divine discontent. They are in the bowling clubs as well as in the trade unions. But while this threat is held over them, people will think twice before they stick their necks out, to use a colloquialism, because information will come back along the dreadful grape vine, and inquiries will be made. The stigma will last whether they are condemned or not. When I was an industrial advocate freelancing for a union, we had a stormy meeting one night and one man spoke against me. Somebody said to me, “ They used to inquire about him when the Communists were first banned “. I had nothing against that man. He was a decent fellow. He had never been charged, but some so-called kind person is ever ready to talk about such activities. The moment that becomes possible, the nation sinks to the level of those countries which have ever been open to the poison pen writer, the liar, the informer and the “ pimp “, who have always been hated by the Australian people.
If the Government believes that this legislation will be effective, it must fix a definite time limit to its operation. If the bill becomes law and operates effectively within a certain period, whether short or long, it will do awaY with the Communists, and peace and harmony will reign again. If that happened there would be no reason to maintain this bill on the statute-books. I did not quite understand the reference made by the Minister to the Governor-General deciding in his own good time when the necessity for this legislation would pass. If the Government is to be consistent, this legislation must have a time limit.
Pictures have been drawn showing terrible desperadoes who will do all they can to see a. foreign power in Canberra and it is said that the Labour party wants to provide loopholes for them to escape. Nothing could be further from the truth. It will not be difficult to catch the leading Communists. If any section of the community proposed to do those terrible things in Australia, they would bring down on themselves the full penalty of the law. But when some perfectly innocent person is taken in charge and put in a court and told, “ You are guilty ; prove that you are not”, he will need protection. Honorable senators know perfectly well that if some individuals are put in the witness box and told that they are Communists and should not be at large because they are opposed to the safety of the country, they would be so inarticulate that they would not be ableto defend themselves. There are misguided people who get dragged into ‘all sorts of things. Honorable senators have been told that not all Communists will be declared. Some will be and some will not. That would be left to the discretion of the Attorney-General. It is a complete caricature to suggest that the Labour party wants to let the desperado and the treasonable person go free. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber want to do no such thing. If the Government can prove its case by law, the Labour party will not try to protect the persons concerned. The Labour movement has had to fight for freedom. Its members remember the time when things which were taken for granted now had to be fought for. Those things are not going to be thrown overboard ‘by an irresponsible government while the Labour party is in opposition.
Statements have been bandied about this chamber that certain persons are Communists. The Government has notgrasped the fact that if a person is called a Communist, either under this bill or before it becomes law, the epithet is a serious one. Before a person is solemnly declared a Communist, there should be a full survey of the position and the facts should he clear. Declared persons will be denied jobs in the trade unions and in the Public Service, and no (private firm will want to employ them. As in the totalitarian countries, the person against whom action is taken will be denied the rights of citizenship, and will he left to starve. It has been said that the Opposition is trying to prevent the banning of the Communist party in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. It has been said that we have tried to obstruct the passage of this legislation without justification, but that charge has been refuted by the action of the Government itself in introducing amendments to give effect to the suggestions we have made. For instance, we opposed the right of entry. The Government has yielded on that point. “We suggested that there should be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of a
State, and that point has been conceded. Still the Government accused us of being obstructive, but only to-night fresh amendments have been introduced to meet some of the more serious objections that we raised. Thus it has been proved that our criticism, far from being obstructive, has been constructive in the highest sense.
Honorable senators opposite have mentioned the Stevedoring Industry Commission, hut their remarks were a travesty of what Senator McKenna said. It has been claimed that the Labour Government kicked two Communists off the Stevedoring Industry Commission without trial, and without offering proof of guilt. “When the Labour Government, caine into office in 1941, conditions on the waterfront in Australia were chaotic. Because of the intricate nature of the work, the Government appointed the Stevedoring Industry Commission, as an adjunct of the Arbitration Court, to deal with matters peculiar to shipping. Both the “Waterside Workers Federation and the ship-owners were asked to nominate representatives, and the federation nominated two ‘Communists, who were duly appointed. However, they deliberately sabotaged the work of the commission, and the Government invited the federation to nominate two other representatives. The first two were removed from their positions, not because they were Communists, but because they failed to do their job. Whether they had been Communists or Jews or gentiles it would have been all the same. The Government asked the federation to nominate two other representatives, but the federation said that it would have its first nominees, or none. The Government made it clear that it was not to be pushed around by Communists or anyone else.
The Immigration Act has also been mentioned, but there is no real comparison between the onus of proof provision in the Immigration Act and that in the present bill. If a person is charged with being a prohibited immigrant in that he is a member of an oriental race, all he has to do to disprove the charge is to put his hand in his pocket and produce a birth certificate showing that- he was horn in Malta, or some other
European country. Indeed, he is the only person who can readily prove where he was horn. Place of birth is a physical fact capable of demonstration. It is easy for a man to prove where he was born. However, a person who is declared to be a Communist is really being charged with being in a certain state of mind. Communists carry no outward mark of their belief. They dc. not wear a special kind of clothes. If a man is charged with holding certain beliefs, it is not easy for him to prove the contrary. The Minister for
Trade and Customs, when introducing the bill, said -
Under communism, it is not a matter of rendering to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar’s and to God the things that are God’s, but rather that the Communist State presumes to take the place of God. The Christian concept that man’s responsibility to God transcends his responsibility to the State irritates and offends the Communist dictators who acknowledge no authority above their own. This, to an extent, explains the universal hostility of communism against Christian, Jew, Moslem and all .people who believe in God and in a moral law. The entire Marxist philosophy fails if the Christian system stands. Christian philosophy demands the recognition of man’s natural rights as a creature of God. Marxist philosophy denies any such rights. As Marx himself stated, “ Communism begins where Atheism begins.”
The Minister has given a great deal of thought to this matter, and the passage I have quoted goes far beyond anything contemplated in the bill. If I know anything about the trade union move ment, the bill will fail to achieve its purpose. If the Minister really believes v. hat he said, and I think he does, what is he going to do about it? If communism begins where atheism begins, because of the difference between the Christian and Communist concept, then the task of the Government is far greater and more profound than anything that this legislation is designed to accomplish. I believe that there is something in what the Minister said. Communism has not -just developed out of thin air. If the problem is to be solved, we must, as Senator Cole said, begin in the schools.
The Government has already accepted some of the suggestions of the Opposition, and has asked for our co-operation. I respectfully suggest that there are men on this side of the chamber who know a great deal about the trade union movement. No one attempts to tell a baker or a mechanic how to do his job, but whenever an industrial disturbance occurs, every Tom, Dick and Harry knows what should be done, how the strike should be conducted, and what the Arbitration Court ought to do. As a matter of fact, the trade union leader has one of the most difficult and intricate of jobs. There is never a dull moment for him from 8 o’clock in the morning until the end of the last meeting at midnight. The handling of industrial disturbances is a job for men who are experts by aptitude and experience. The Government has, very wisely, I believe, accepted suggestions from members of the Opposition, men who are older and much more experienced in industrial affairs than I am. As this bill stands the Government could, and might, declare members of the Australian Labour party. It is certain that innocent members of the community could, and might, be declared in error. “We would be less than a responsible Opposition if we allowed that to happen.
– While Senator Willesee was speaking, the amendments foreshadowed by the Government were circulated, and so I propose to discuss the bill together with the proposed amendments. I was interested in Senator Willesee’s statement that persons with no knowledge of industrial matters are prepared to rush in with their advice when a strike occurs. I remind honorable senators that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) at one time consistently represented trade unions in the Arbitration Court, and he knows far more about Arbitration Court proceedings than does Senator Willesee and most other honorable senators opposite. The fact that the Government has introduced amendments to this bill shows that it has kept an open mind.
– It has done what we suggested.
– Certainly it has. Many of the amendments were framed after Ministers had heard suggestions by the Opposition. The function of the Opposition is to put forward arguments which it believes to be good, if the Government also believes them to be good, it will incorporate them in the bill in the form of amendments. The amendments that have just been circulated cover some of the points regarding which doubts were raised in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. For instance, the first amendment provides for the setting up of a committee consisting of the Solicitor-General, the Secretary to the Department of Defence, the Director-General of Security, and two other persons, to consider the evidence against any person whom it is proposed to declare. Only after the committee is satisfied with the evidence will the person be declared. Honorable senators will agree that that is a valuable safeguard. The second amendment provides that if a declared person goes into the witness box and gives evidence on oath, the onus of proof shall revert to the Grown. If the declared person refuses to give evidence, then the onus will remain on him to prove his innocence. T think that is fair. If a man is not willing to go into the witness box and give evidence on oath, there must be something wrong. The third foreshadowed amendment deals with officers of an organization, and the last is designed to ensure that the measure shall remain in force only for as long as, in the opinion of the Governor-General, it is necessary for it to do so.
In the course of the debate, honorable senators on both sides of the chamber have dealt with the question of whether the Government has a mandate for this measure. Prior to the last general election, I spent over five months wandering round Queensland. Instead of making speeches from soap-boxes or in halls, I went amongst the people. When men were working on a job, I had a yarn with the foreman and asked permission to talk to them. I tried to get them to talk to me, rather than to listen to me. I found that the feeling against Communists, then, was very strong, and I think it is just as strong now. I believe that the Government has a very definite mandate for this measure. I do not pretend that communism was the only issue upon which the Government was elected, but I believe that it played a very large part in the election, and honorable senators opposite have, in effect, agreed that that is so.
Senator Armstrong complained that during the general election campaign, we tried to tie the Australian Labour party to the Communist party. I cannot speak for all members of the present Government parties, but I know that I did not do that. The Labour party has only itself to blame if some people believe that it is tied to the Communist party. Dr. Lloyd Ross, writing in the Loft: News in March, 1947, stated -
The effects of the war and the Russian revolution were revealed in the changes of 1921. The Federal Executive of the Labour party requested the industrial organizations to meet and discuss the formation Of a new programme. After this programme of 1921, they formulated and adopted as their objective . . .
He went on to refer to the objective that has been bandied backwards and forwards in this chamber during the last three months - the socialization of industry and the means of production, distribution and exchange. Dr. Lloyd Ross is well known in the Labour party. The Liberal party cannot be blamed for linking the Australian Labour party with the Communists, when the Labour party’s own writers have done so. That is one of the accusations that has been hurled at us by honorable senators opposite in support of their contention that we did not play the game when we were on the hustings during the last general election campaign.
Many suggestions have been made by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber as to when the scourge of communism began. I believe that, for all practical purposes, it started with the -Seventh Internationale in 1927. It was from the Seventh Internationale that the beginnings of communism, as we now know it, emerged. It was then that the Communists bogan to put out feelers and send their agents to various countries, including Australia. I am dealing now only with Australia. Who were the people that the Communists sent here? Who were the recruits that they got, and what kind of people were they ? My knowledge of Communists, which is fairly extensive, has led me to the conclusion that Communists are different from ordinary people. Honorable senators opposite have their Labour ideas and we have our Liberal ideas, but they are a part of, and not the whole, of cur lives. The Communist eats, sleeps, talks and lives communism. Every minute of his life is devoted to the cause of communism. That is something that we cannot understand. Perhaps the only people who have some glimmer of knowledge of how Communists feel about communism are those who are very much taken up with religion. I realize that the cases are not parallel, but I think that perhaps people devoted to religion may realize how all-enthralling communism is to the Communists. I have talked to many Communists, and I have a fairly good idea of how they feel about communism. They have absolutely no conscience in relation to the things that we hold dear. Their one aim in life is to further the teachings of communism. An example of that is that when Sharkey went to Malaya eighteen months ago, he was reported - and it was not denied - to have suggested to people throughout that country that they should continue to murder, pillage, and to do all the things that the Communists are now doing in South-East Asia. I wonder whether it was only by coincidence that shortly afterwards, three young Australians were killed in Malaya. How did that hit people here when they heard of it? The members of the Australian Labour party must have felt precisely the same about it as did the members of the Liberal party. We are up against persons of that type.
A bill to deal with the Communist scourge cannot be produced, as it were, out of the hat, in the same way as small bills like that providing for the payment of child endowment to the first child in every family. In one sense, that is not n small bill, but it is not as important to the nation as is this one. This measure was very difficult to draft, and allowance had to be made for possible amendments. Honorable senators opposite, in criticizing the Government, have referred to the fact that the bill was amended in some respects in the House of Representatives, but I believe that that was a very good thing. I admire the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) for the way in which he has accepted amendments in an effort to ensure that the bill will be passed.
– He yielded to public opinion, quite rightly.
– He said, in his second-reading speech, that he would not tolerate amendments.
– I am not interested in what the Prime Minister said, but I am interested in what he has done. The fact that he has yielded to public opinion makes the case for the bill stronger. Public opinion has been fostered to a very large degree by the Labour party, and I give it full marks for that. Why should not I do so? We want the bill to be as effective as possible.
Senator O’Flaherty, speaking of communism, said that Marx had never advocated bloodshed, revolution, or anything like that. He used what, in my opinion, was a rather childish simile when he said that he, too, wanted to overthrow the Government. I suggest to the honorable senator that he should consult the dictionary and learn what the word “ overthrow “ means. What he meant was that he wanted to ‘change the Government, not that he wanted to overthrow it. To overthrow a government, means to throw the government out, not merely to change the party that is in power. We had to listen for approximately half an hour to statements along those lines. I considered that some of them . were rather vindictive, and they were certainly not a great help.
The Communists, in spreading their doctrines, resort to all kinds of propaganda that honorable senators would not touch or think of. I have a copy of a very interesting book that was written by Dr. Goebbels some years ago, when Hitler was in power. At a rally in Nuremburg, he spoke of Bolshevist propaganda. Everybody admits that Hitler and his ministers were adepts at propaganda, but Dr. Goebbels said -
I have already laid stress on the fact that Bolshevist [propaganda is sufficiently astute to adjust its teachings to its hearers. Bolshevist propaganda may be religious or anti-religious, to suit the circumstances. It is utterly without conscience, and all means are justified by the ends they serve. All over the world this propaganda has at its disposal a complex machinery that is made up of the Communist sections of the various countries. It only needs to press a button to ,put this machinery into operation. In every country it operates, either secretly or in the open. Woe to the nation that allows it to function! One day that nation will be undermined by this seditious activity and will he disrupted, merely because this phenomenon has not been seriously taken into account.
That was said by Dr. Goebbels. Nobody will say that the Nazis- did not understand what was going on in the world at that time. We are trying to awaken certain sections of this community to what has been going on in Australia for the last fifteen years. 1 want to try to show why some honorable senators on this side of the chamber have said that the Australian Labour party, represented by honorable senators opposite, is dictated to by the Communists, and why some of us, including myself, believe that a definite chain exists. It has been reported in the press that last Sunday Mr. Bird, the secretary of the Seamen’s Union, made a significant statement. The report has not been contradicted, so I shall assume that it is ti n accurate one.
– Mr. Bird is not a member of the Australian Labour party.
– He is a wellknown Communist, and presumably has nothing to do with the Australian Labour party as such. He is reported to have said -
We want to make a show of obeying, law and order until we can gather sufficient forces to carry on the struggle . . . When we get our struggle’ going, with the assistance of miners and waterside workers, we will order ships to detour back to their home ports.
He made those remarks in relation to this bill. I have no doubt that many honorable senators opposite have read the report. A well-known Communist, Mr. Bird, is one of the persons that decides what is going to happen in these particular trade unions. They take their time from him, and, in turn they belong to the Australian Labour party.
– Why does not the honorable senator get his head read? The Seamen’s Union is not affiliated with the Labour party.
– I am referring to the wharfingers.
– The Seamen’s Union was specifically mentioned.
– I shall deal with that matter in a moment because there are some interesting aspects of it. It is quite easy for people who do not know very much about it to assume that the leader of the union, who is a Communist, sets the ball rolling and that the links in the chain are the union, the Labour party and the Labour representatives in the Senate?
– We are afraid that the Government is doing something that it knows nothing about. It is evident that the honorable senator does not understand the great trade union movement.
– I understand it sufficiently well to describe the way that the Government is approaching a consideration of this matter.
– That is why Hitler went mad.
– The Seamen’s Union has never had a fair go. It is controlled by Communists.
– That is not Labour’s fault.
– Why not blame the Liberal party?
– According to the newspaper article, Mr. Bird also said -
On Tuesday, next week, the anti-Communist bill goes back to the Senate and I have no illusions about Labour senators. We are the only people who can convince the Labour men that they have to do something to protect the working class. But if we don’t convince them, they will sit and do nothing - just keep their jobs.
I make it clear that I do not subscribe to Mr. Bird’s statement. It is evident from the remarks of the Opposition that honorable senators opposite are endeavouring to keep Mr. Bird in power.
– That is another bait like the Leader of the Government in the Senate threw out.
– I have already stated that I do not subscribe to that comment. During the debate not very much has been said about how the various strikes in the last five years have affected the unfortunate people who have had to do the actual striking. I refer not to the leaders of the unions hut to the people who struck and lost pay. I think it is generally agreed by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber that, in the main, strikes have been caused by Communists. From a perusal of the records it is clear that Communistcontrolled unions have been responsible for SS per cent, of the total man-days that have been lost through strikes in the last five years. That, in itself, is a serious indictment of the Communist party.-
– The Government can do what it likes with the Communists: we do not want them.
– A Communistcontrolled union with only 250,000 members lost 5,250,000 man-days, while other unions with 1,000,000 members only lost 1,750,000 man-days. If those figures are reduced to the same common denominator, it is found that the Communistcontrolled unions have lost twelve times the number of man-days as the other non-Communist-controlled unions have lost. That is another indictment, if it were needed. During that period about ?2,000,000 was lost in wages. That did not come out of the pockets of the Communists. but out of the pockets of people, many of whom are not members of the Australian Labour party.
– I repeat, the Government can do what it likes with the “ Comms “.
– A lot has been said about the coal strike last year. I was astounded to hear Senator McKenna, who is usually well-informed, speak of the unwillingness of Liberal party representatives to go to the coal-fields to address the miners. In this connexion, Hansard records the following question and answer in the House of Representatives on the 30th June, 1949 :-
Mr. MENZIES . . . will the Prime Minister consider a suggestion that he, together with the Leader of the Australian Country party, and myself as Leader of the Liberal party, should go to the coal-fields to express to the miners the views of all members of the Parliament? I may add that the Leader of the Australian Country party concurs in this suggestion.
Mr. CHIFLEY. The matter of delivering addresses to the miners on the coal-fields has been already considered by the Government. . . but it is doubtful, in the light of previous experience, whether anything is to be Gained by addresses to miners. However, since the right honorable gentleman has made thu suggestion, he can rest assured that it will be considered by the Government.
I consider Senator McKenna’s remark about the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to be out of place, because 1 do not think that anybody doubts the right honorable gentleman’s courage.
– We know of his courage. If it had not been for World War I. he would have been it general.
– That is rather cheap.
– It is true.
– There seems to be a great deal of confused thinking, certainly by honorable senators opposite, and also by one or two honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber, about the corrections that the Prime Minister has made to the list of people that he read out during his second-reading speech on this measure.
– The right honorable gentleman read out 53 names.
– In the first place, I should like to exonerate Mi-. J. R. Hughes. Senator McKenna stated that Mr. Hughes’s photograph was published in a newspaper by mistake. I agree that it was published by mistake. However, the mistake was made not by the Government but by the newspaper. In only one instance was the actual name wrong. I shall not mention the names of the other four. Mr. Ticehurst denied that he had been a Communist at any time. In connexion with the other four, amendments were made merely in the positions occupied by them. Senator O’Flaherty said that he had known Mr. S. G. Hibbens for 40 years. The accusation has not been publicly denied.
– I rise to order. Although Senator Kendall has stated that Mr. Hibbens has not denied the accusation publicly, I point out that the South Australian press published a quarterpage denial ,by him.
– I rise to order. The objection that has been taken by
Senator Critchley does not relate to the subject-matter-
– Order! I am not a clairvoyant, and therefore do not always know what is in the mind of an honorable senator. In such instances I allow an honorable senator to continue for a while in order to decide in my mind what he is driving at. By the time that Senator O’Sullivan rose I realized that possibly I should have stopped Senator Critchley.
– The point that I wanted to make-
– The honorable senator has dealt with only two names so far.
– I consider that I have dealt with four names. However, I accept the correction; but the point I wish to make is this - there was no more trouble about those two people being able to prove their innocence than there would be, under this measure, for an innocent person to substantiate his innocence.
– A declared person would be branded, irrespective of the fact that he may subsequently be proved innocent.
– Following Senator Grant’s example, I feel that I could not do better than conclude by reciting the following lines by Henry Lawson, which appear apt : -
What shall Australia fight for! The reason may yetbe found,
When strange shells scatter the wickets or burst on the football ground.
And “Who shall invade Australia?” Let the wisdom of ages say,
The friend of a further future - or the ally of yesterday”.
Debate interrupted.
page 3711
– Order ! Under the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 3711
The following papers were presented : -
Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -
Commerce and Agriculture - J. A. Hart.
Labour and National Service - H. L. Farrimond.
Repatriation - I. T. Macgowan.
Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Defence purposes - Elizabeth Bay (Pott’s Point), New South Wales.
Department of Civil Aviation purposes -
Archerfield, Queensland.
Cleve, South Australia.
Naval Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 23.
Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 June 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500606_senate_19_208/>.