'Secret Papers' Case Is Causing Much Tension

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 October 1948, Page 8

'Secret Papers' Case Is Causing Much Tension

(From C. R. Mentlplay, Special Press Association Correspondent.)

.(Res, 9 a.rri.) SYDNEY, This Day. Though little has said since the'bitter exchanges in the House of Representatives last week, tension in Canberra over what is known as the “secret documents case,” has, if anything, increased. .

At present few., facts have emerged from the mass of speculation and accusation. The Prime Minister (Mr Chifley) and the .Government adhere to their earlier statement that if certain documents quoted by the Leader of the Country Party (Mr A. AV. Fadden) in the House are authentic, they must have been stolen, whereas if they are false they must be forgeries. Demandjor Truth Mr Fadden and the united Opposition repeat their demands that Mr Chifley should ' say whether or not the statements contained in the documents are true. 5 The matter, can be decided in a i** moment in one of two ways. Either Mr Chifley can say what he must know, or Mr Fadden can hand the discussed documents over for investigation. This course was taken when. Labour was in opposition seven years ago. The late. Mr John Curtin came into possession of a confidential document which prompted him to ask a carefully-worded question in the House concerning public administration. Mr Curtin was able to say: “I am not in the habit of having secrets given me by employees of the Crown. The first thing that I did was to take the matter straight to the head of the Australian Government. The documents have been made available for his persual.” These papers later appeared publicly for the first time during, a Royal Commission. The Prime Minister to whom Mr Curtin handed the documents was Mr Fadden. History of Incident The present incident opened in the House of Representatives on September .30, when Mr Fadden quoted from two documents. One purported to be a record of a meeting between Mr Chifley and British Cabinet Ministers at No. 10, Downing Street, on the morning of July 8. In it was a statement that Mr Chifley said that he understood that America was relutctant to pass on atomic research information to Australia. The second document purported to concern a statement by the Minister of Defence (Mr J. J. Dedman) before a meeting of the executive of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, that. British departments were not sure that the council could be trusted with certain information. Breach of Privilege Claimed The Government immediately ordered an investigation, in the course of which an attempt was made to question Mr Fadden in his office in Parliament Buildings. Claiming that his privilege as a Member of Parlia-

ment had been violated, Mr Fadden recalled the Bill of Rights of 1689 which provided that any Prime Minister should uphold the principle that freedom of speech and debate in Parlaiment could not be impeached in any outside court or place. Some correspondents believe that a newspaper may have had a part in the original leakage, and that if a Royal Commission results, it may concern newspaper privilege equally as much as that of members of Parliament. *