COMMUNIST MOVE AGAINST ROCKET RANGE IS “DISLOYAL, ALIEN, AND SINISTER”

Evening Star, Issue 26103, 17 May 1947, Page 8

COMMUNIST MOVE AGAINST ROCKET RANGE IS “DISLOYAL, ALIEN, AND SINISTER”

CANBERRA, May 15. The objection of the Communists to the rocket bomb project had no relationship to the well-being of the Australian aborigines, said the Attorney-General, Dr H. V. Evatt, in the House of Representatives. The attepmt of the Communists to. hold up the rocket range defence preparations showed the disloyel, alien, and sinister features of their activities. I)r Evatt produced articles and pamphlets written by Communists in which they said that the rocket range project was an Atlee-Bevin-Curtin-Chifley plan to make an imperial base of Australia! People were urged to resist the building of the range and to agitate for a water supply line to go to their homes and cities for peaceful uses. The fact that these views were put forward were not in themselves hurtful. Some of the great Christian Churches in Australia themselves held such a view. But there was a more serious situation when the instrument of boycott or attempted sabotage was used to prevent the success of the experiments. Dr Evatt said steps had been taken on both the civil and military side to strengthen Australia’s security service. It was possil'be that the Communist Party might become a menaco to the safety of Australia. . The Government knew the Communists. They could be dealt with by juries and courts, and the laws could be enforced if the boycott were likely to jeopardise defence. PUBLIC INQUIRY REFUSED. Dr Evatt refused a demand for a public inquiry by an all-party parliamentary committee into Communist activities in Australia. Discarding a declaration by Mr J. T. Lang (Independent Labour, New South Wales) that America was heading for war with Russia as “ imbecilic,” Dr Evatt indicated that the security service was already investigating the activities of the Communist Party. He added that a public inquiry would result in the premature disclosure of information, which, would not be in the public interest. It would disclose sources of information, and would close the avenues, through which evidence was being obtained.