GAG APPLIED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26904, 16 October 1948, Page 7

GAG APPLIED

PRIVILEGE DEBATE

“SECRET DOCUMENTS”

AFFAIR N.Z.P.A.—Copyright CANBERRA, Oct. 15. The eagerly-awaited privilege debate arising from the “secret documents” affair was gagged, and on Opposition motion defeated on the voices in the House of Representatives to-day. 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 of security police in attempting to question the leader of the Country Party, Mr A. W. Fadden, about documents he quoted in the House on September 30, constituted a, breach of privilege. Mr Fadden based his charge on Section 49 of the Australian Constitution, which states that until declared otherwise, powers, privileges and immunities of a member of Parliament shall be those of a member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. He stated 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 be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament.

He added that the present case was exactly parallel to the Sandys case before the war. The claim of Duncan Sandys concerning a breach of privilege had been upheld by the Parliamentary Select Committee.

Privilege Not Involved

In reply, the Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, said that no question of parliamentary privilege was involved. Officers were admitted to Mr Fadden’s room with his consent. The breach of privilege in the Sandys case arose from the fact that Sandys was ordered to appear in uniform before a military court of inquiry at a time when' the House was about to consider the propriety of his being asked to give information.

“We made a request to Mr Fadden, who has been a Prime Minister and is a Privy Councillor, to help the Government in discovering whether there were thieves or forgers in the public service or elsewhere,” Mr Chifley said. “We see clearly that the Government need expect no co-operation from Opposition members in its endeavours to prove whether there are thieves or forgers,” added Mr Chifley. “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 information can claim privilege, or, as some say, shelter in a coward’s castle.” The Minister v of Defence, Mr J. J. Dedman, said that members should be quite clear that a criminal offence had been committed. Untruths Alleged Mr H. L. Anthony (Country Party) said that neither Mr Chifley nor Mr Dedman would admit whether the documents were genuine, but that on the Ministers' own statements 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 ActingLeader of the Opposition, Mr E. J. Harrison, concerning the action of the Deputy-Speaker, Mr J. J. 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 36—20.