ESPIONAGE IN AUSTRALIA

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27426, 12 August 1954, Page 11

ESPIONAGE IN AUSTRALIA

Power Of Inquiry Extended

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 11 j.m.) CANBERRA, August 11 .The Prime Minister (Mr Menaies) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives tonight to “put beyond doubt the authority and powers of the Royal Commission “ito espionage and the protection of its proceedings.”

He said: rhe Government is determined that the commission’s inquiries shall not be thwarted by avoidable legal technicalities. Already there are signs of organised attacks on the commission, and there have been pointblank refusals to give evidence before it.

“The commission is dealing with matters of great importance not only for Australia’s national safety and international relations, but for other countries with which Australia is associated in resistance to Soviet aggression. Such a commission may need and, jn our opinion, should have, more ample authority and protection than are given to Royal Commissions in general.”

Mr Menzies said the Royal Commission Bill dealt stringently with the duty of a witness to produce documents and answer questions. It made it clear that a witness could not, as he/ could in a Court of law, refuse to answer questions on the ground that an answer might incriminate himself or his wife.

9 The bill made Refusal to answer questions an offence punishable by imprisonment as an alternative to a fine, which at present is the only penalty on a first offence. The bill made an offence of refusal to testify in its various forms (failure to attend, refusal to take an oath or to make an affirmation, refusal to produce documents or to answer a question) punishable summarily by the High Court as if it were contempt of the High Court itself. Effect of Failure to Testify “Refusal to testify, of course, could completely bring the commission’s inquiry to a halt,” he said. “The new contempt .procedure is in substitution xor the rather obscure and unsatisfactory provision in the general Royal Commission Act for summary proceedings on the Attorney-General’s information in the High Court. The bill permits as an alternative the possibility of summary proceedings before a Magistrate.”

Mr Menzies said: “The bill enables a Court to impose, in the event of refusal to testify, in any of its forms, a penalty of up to three months’ imprisonment as an alternative to a fine. Another clause puts beyond doubt, with restrospective effect, that no proceedings for defamation may be brought against the Commonwealth or its representatives for publishing the transcript of the commission’s proceedings or any report made by the commission. The same protection is given to newspapers and broadcasters which publish fair and accurate reports of the commission’s proceedings or who publish any report made by the commission, so long, of course, as the matter is not covered by a secrecy order.

“I turn to the High Court actions brought by one Lockwood, which are still pending. The bill is intended to cispose of the only point of substance that seems to be left in a sense outstanding in respect of Lockwood’s second High Court action, and to render it fruitless to go any further with those proceedings. If further provision should becoriie necessary later, we shall ask Parliament to attend to the matter.”

The bill provides that a person refusing to give evidence is liable to a £5OO fine or imprisonment for three months. It also provides for a £5OO fine or one year’s imprisonment for any violence against a witness for evidence before the commission.