Labour Censure Motion Fails

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30447, 22 May 1964, Page 7

Labour Censure Motion Fails

Z. Press Association—Copyright) CANBERRA, May 21. A censure motion against the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Snedden, moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Calwell, failed in the House of Representatives in Canberra yesterday by 63 votes to 42. Mr Calwell charged that Mr Snedden had, by remarks in the House, brought the Australian Security Service into disrepute.

If the Opposition was right in its charge that Mr Snedden lacked the confidence of the House then he could not continue in office, said Mr Calwell.

The censure motion said Mr Snedden deliberately jnisled the House while purporting to give it official information in his position as Attorney-General and as Minister in charge of Security. He subsequently admitted his statements were based solely on a report which appeared in the Communist newspaper, “Tribune,” which he quoted incorrectly, the motion said.

The Opposition move followed angry exchanges in Parliament over the political activities of groups of Croats in Australia.

“GUILT BY ASSOCIATION” Mr Calwell said that Mr Snedden had refined the idea of guilt by association into a doctrine which would make it impossible for any Parlia-

mentarian to do his duty without fear or favour. He said that Mr Snedden had not apologised for his action, which made the offence worse. The censure motion might not have been moved had he apologised. He had put his personal dignity above the dignity of his office.

“He abused his position as a Minister and particularly as Attorney-General and Minister in charge of administration of Security to attack the rights of a private member for the purpose of intimidating him and damaging his reputation,” said Mr Calwell.

The Treasurer, Mr Holt, the only Government member who spoke, said that throughout the events which led up to the motion the Opposition had harassed and hindered Mr Snedden whenever he had tried to state his views dispassionately, calmly and judiciously. At one stage there were no less than eight Opposition interjections when Mr Snedden had been replying to questions. Mr Holt said that the Government did net treat the matter lightly as no Prime Minister in a democracy had shown as much respect for the standard of ministerial conduct as Sir Robert Menzies

But it was a travesty of justice for the Opposition to ask the House to judge the matter.

The Opposition had already made up its mind on how it was going to vote without hearing both sides. “I suggest there is no justification for any fair minded Opposition to put on a charge of censure,” Mr Holt said.