The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1967. A Ministerial Affront

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31450, 17 August 1967, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1967. A Ministerial Affront

An odd feature of the debate on the Justice Department estimates was the brief discussion on the Indecent Publications Tribunal. It was still more odd that the Minister, Mr Hanan, responsible for the act of 1963 and for the appointment of the chairman and members of the tribunal, appeared to agree with Mr May, the chief Opposition speaker, that the tribunal had not “interpreted the will of Parliament”, and that its powers have been “sparingly exercised . Perhaps oddest of all was Mr Hanan s reply to Mr May’s question, what was to be done with a tribunal which would not carry out the will of Parliament: “change the tribunal”.

It is hard to remember when a Minister so deliberately affronted the members of a judicial body appointed by him to administer an act promoted by himself and did so without justifying himself. Moreover, it is more than a little surprising to find Mr Hanan in set terms accepting Mr May’s charge that the tribunal has not answered “ the will of “ Parliament ”, for Mr Hanan is well aware, as perhaps Mr May is not, that the courts and other judicial bodies are not required to interpret the will of Parliament but the terms of the act or acts by which they are bound. This comment probably extends to Mr Hanan’s remark that the tribunal has “very spar“ingly” exercised its power under the act. If that means that the tribunal has been judiciously careful, it is not a charge but a tribute.

It remains to ask what caused this flurry of debate and the Minister’s odd part in it. The remarkable fact is that though this bill was vehemently attacked when before the House, its administration has been generally accepted and approved but for occasional personal protests against this or that decision, and recent protests by a religious organisation. In the only decision that went to appeal before the Supreme Court, as the act provides, the tribunal was sustained. It seems that most objections rest upon the fact that objectionable paperbacks circulate freely, while the tribunal does nothing: but the fact is that the tribunal has no right, in terms of the act, to prowl bookshops, bookstalls or dairies and pick out paperbacks to decide on. It is required to decide on books, hard-covered or paperback, submitted to it in process of the act. The record shows that the process has not been fully used, which is not the tribunal’s fault. This may or may not bear upon the Minister’s remark that the tribunal has “very sparingly” used its power. Whatever he meant, Mr Hanan should remember that his legislative experiment has drawn wide attention and approval A few days ago a Sydney cablegram reported the commendation of the “ Sydney Morning Herald ” on the tribunal’s decision upon Henry Miller’s “ Capricorn ” and “ Cancer ” and its regret that Australian legislation and procedure were not so enlightened. The more is the pity that the results of the experiment should be attacked where it began.