BILL TO BAN COMMUNISTS

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26121, 25 May 1950, Page 5

BILL TO BAN COMMUNISTS

Delay in Federal Senate LABOUR REFUSES URGENCY (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 11.30 p.m.) CANBERRA, May 24. The Labour Opposition to-day used its majority in the Senate to prevent the Federal K Government from declaring the Communist Party Dissolution Bill an urgent measure. There were cries of “Fascism” when the President (Senator G. Brown) announced that the bill had been transmitted from the House of Representatives. The Government Leader (Senator N. O’Sullivan) then moved that the till be considered urgent, but the motion was lost by 34 votes to 22. Senator O’Sullivan moved the suspension of the standing orders to enable the bill to pass through all stages without delay. The Denuiv Opposition Leader (Senator N. E. McKenna) said the Opposition had no intention of delaying the measure, but the bill was important and extraordinary, and the Opposition should have an opportunity to give it full consideration. Senator O’Sullivan’s motion was lost. The bill was read a first time, and the second reading debate was adjourned until to-morrow. The Federal House of Representatives earlier passed through all stages , the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. ! The guillotine was imposed late last i night, when the House was in com- 1 mittee d : scussing the contentious) clause dealing with the onus of proof. I The Labour amendments were defeatod and the Government amendments agreed to without d scussion. | Just before the debate in "committee; ended. Mr J. S. Rosevear (Labour) . said: “I warn the Government that j when they start to dictate to the trade ; union movement who the officers shall I be. the fun will start.” Clause 9 of the bill provides that a person who is a member.of a Com-, mun’st or other unlawful organisation can be declared, thus making him in- j e’igible for employment in the Com-: monvzealth service, a union, or a key i industry. He can appeal against the I decoration, but is required to satisfy! the Court that the declaration was. unwarranted. One Labour amendment sought to make the Crown bear the onus of proving that the declaration was justified. An amendment proposed by the Prime Minister ’Mr Menzies) provided that a declaration be treated as an averment and be prima fac e evidence that the declared person was one to whom the section applied. The Labour amendment on the onus of proof was defeated, and the Government /me agreed to by 60 votes to 40. OUier Government amendments passed included a provis on that a party searching premises must have a search warrant and, in the case of a , successful appeal, costs may be awarded. Mr Cbifley’s Speech During the debate on the bill, Mr Menzies said that t’re Leader of Ihe Oppos t on (Mr Chifley) had made a “singularly odd. if not blasphemous observation.” He was replying to a .speech in which Mr Chifley said that the registration was admin stered, to some extent, in an aimo phere of nat onal hysteria worked up by the newspapers and politicians. Mr Ch'fley said th t this could re- j suit in many grave injustices to indi- ; viduals. The bill was aimed at n'em- J bers of the trade unions, but the Government claimed that the great body' of public opinion was behind the b 11. Government v ices; So it is. Mr Chifley: Surpo'-e all the community was in favour of the bill. Does that prove that no injustices could- be committed under it? Does the average

man in the* street understand the implications of this bill? Multitudes can make great mistakes. It was the multitude. by its vote, that sent Christ to be crucified. Replying. Mr Menzies said: “This speech is the most remarkable made on the bill. Mr Chifley has just made a mest curious and. I thought, ambiguous reference to the votes of the multitudes and the death of Christ which I venture to describe as singularly odd, if not blasphemous. “I do not know whether he wanted to draw an analogy between the I founder of our religion and those I wretched people now engaged in a ! conspiracy against the safety of the j State. What emerged from Mr ' Chifley’s speech is that while it is not • good politics to vote to save ihe Communist Party from destruction, it is good politics to whip up agony about an individual who can be declared only if he has been a member of one of the organisations the bill proposes to ‘destroy.” Correspondents report that tension has flared up again in the Federal Labour Party over the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. The South Australian Labour Party executive has warned members of the Federal Parliament that those who depart from the Labour Party executive's ruling on the bill will lose their endorsement. It is known that Mr C. Chambers. a former Minister of the Army, is among those favouring the abandonment of the fight on the onus of proof clause. Ihe rift in Ihe Labpur Party ,■ emphasised to-day by furious Labour ! lobbying by both factions within the party.