BILL AGAINST COMMUNISM

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26211, 7 September 1950, Page 7

BILL AGAINST COMMUNISM

labour attitude IN AUSTRALIA (From C. R. MENTIPLAV, Special Correspondent of the N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 7 p.m.) SYDNEY, Sept. 6. The uncompromising opposition of the Australian Labour Party to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill means that the bill, with the issues of a possible double dissolution and a General Election, will be the most important matters before the House of Representatives when it reassembles at Canberra late this month. Iviany Labour men, includuig several former Federal Ministers and a majority of - the Trades and Labour council of Victoria, have expressed themselves in favour of the bill because of the grave international situation. Their votes, however, have been outweighed by those, notably the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chifley. who argue that any restriction of political thought is bad. It is a similar view which has prompted the full executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to protest to the Federal Government against its ban on the issue of passports for travel to Communist countries. Thus, official Labour opinion still protects the liberty of the individual, even though there may be strong grounds for believing that an individual is taking part in activities subversive to the State. Unless something happens in the next fortnight to alter the Labour views the Labour majority in the Senate will again refuse to pass the bill without ihe Senate amendments which have proved distasteful to the Government.

One of these amendments throws the w’hole onus of proof upon the Government when a person or organisation appeals against being declared a Communist. Another provides for trial by jury in the event of an appeal. The Government’s view is that these amendments would destroy the legislation.

To the arguments that such safeguards are necessary to prevent injustice, the Government has replied that provisions placing the onus of proving innocence upon an accused person have existed for many years in the Crimes Act without suffering amendment during Labour regimw. If the Senate again rejects the bill, a double dissolution is by no means automatic. Under the present proportional voting, the chances are that the Senate after an election would again be evenly divided. Mr Menzies may be forced to accept an emasculated Communist Party Dissolution Bill, rather than face the turbulence of another election followed by a stalemate. This would enable him to wait until his referendum changing the method of electing the Senate comes before the people, in about a year’s time.

The indications are that in voting for the House of Representatives Labour would lose heavily on the AntiCommunist Bill issue. Public opinion polls, which have been extraordinarily accurate in Australia, suggest that Labour would lose ud to 17 seats and that its hold on the Senate would be endangered.

Labour Partv strategists suggest that if the party forced a double dissolution and then fought the election on the issue of rising costs and falling purchasing power, the result might be ’ery different.