“Secret” Documents Affair— Chifley "Gags” Move By Opposition

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 October 1948, Page 5

“Secret” Documents Affair— Chifley " Gags” Move By Opposition

(Recd. 10.45 a.m.) CANBERRA, This Day. The eagerly awaited privilege debate arising from the “secret” documents affair was “gagged” and an Opposition motion defeated on the voices in the House of Representatives. Members of both parties said in the lobbies afterwards that the result was an anti-climax to a fortnight of tension. Startling disclosures were expected but the debate moved on a relatively academic level.

The Opposition motion claimed that the action o£ the security police in attempting to question the leader, of the Country Party, Mr A. W. Fad- I den, about a document he quoted in; the House on September 30 constitut- I ed a breach of privilege. ; The Bill of Rights Mr Fadden based his charge on Sec- I tion 49 of the Australian Constitution, I which states that, until declared otherwise, the powers, privileges and immunities of a member of Parliament shall be those of a member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Mr Fadden slated that British parliamentary privilege, as defined in the Bill of Rights, 1689. was “that freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to bo impeached or questioned in any court cl’ place outside Parliament.” He added that the present case was exactlv parallel to the Sandys case before” the war. The claim of Mr Duncan Sandys concerning a breach of privilege had been upheld by a Parliamentary Select Committee. In reply the Prime Minister, Mr J. B. Chifley, said that no question of parliamentary privilege was involved. The officers were admitted to Mr Fadden's room with his consent. The' breach of privilege in the Sandys case | arose from the fact that Mt Sandys . was ordered to appear in uniform be- I fore a military court of inquiry at time when, the House was about to consider the propriety of his being asked to give information. “Thieves Or Forgers” “Wc made a request to Mr Fadden; who has been Prime Minister and is a Privy Councillor, to help the Government in _ discovering whether there wore thieves or_ forgers in the Public Service or elsewhere,” he said. “We see clearly that the Government need expect no co-operation from the Opposition members in its endeavours to prove whether there are tmoves or lorgers. “The Government now knows precisely where it stands, If there is a leakage of something from a department which someone- is prepared to thieve, then that someone knows he can always find recipients and that he will be sheltered, because members who might, use the miormation can claim privilege nr. as some say. shelter in a cowards The Minister of Defence, Mr J. J. Dedman, said that members should be quite clear that a criminal oifence had been committed. Did Dedman Tell Untruths? Mr H. L. Anthony (Country Party) said that neither Mr Chifley nor Mr Dedman would admit wneiner the documents were genuine, bti.

that on the Ministers' own state-ments-it was plain they were. Consequently. it was evident that Mr Dedman had told Parliament untruths about defence matters. After further discussion the Vicepresident of the Executive Council, Mr W. J. Scully moved the “gag” and the privilege motion was lost on the voices.

A-motion of dissent by the Acting Leader of the Opposition, Mr E. J. Harrison, concerning the action of the Deputy Speaker, Mr Clark, in ruling that Mr Fadden’s privilege motion was not entitled to take precedence over other business, was then considered. Mr Scully again applied the “gag” and the motion was lost by 36 votes to 20.