ONUS OF PROOF CLAUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27384, 9 May 1950, Page 7

ONUS OF PROOF CLAUSE

Labour’s Main Objection To Anti-Communist Bill MENZIES WILL REMAIN FIRM New Zealand Press Association Special Correspondent Rec. 9.30 p.m. SYDNEY, May 8. The main battle between the Menzies Government and Labour on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill is expected to revolve around the clause which places upon a person declared to be a Communist the onus of proving his innocence. Competent observers believe that Mr Menzies may be prepared to accept amendments restricting the right of search without a warrant and widening a declared person’s right of appeal. On the question of onus of proof, however, Mr Menzies is expected to remain adamant.

Immediate past history reveals that Labour is not on a sound footing in its opposition to this section of the proposed Act. When last winter it was faced with a disastrous coal strike imposed by Communist-dominated miners’ lodges, the Labour Government brought down the National Emergency Coal Strike Bill with which it eventually smashed the deadlock. This Bill contained a provision identical with that in the Communist Party Dissolution Bill —that a declared person must show proof of innocence. New South Wales Liberal members have rallied to the attack by stigmatising Labour opposition to this clause as “pure humbug.” They state that the New South Wales Labour Government has just passed two Acts which contain a similar provision—the Prices Regulation Act of 1948. and the Bread Manufacture and Delivery Act, which has not yet become law. The recent catch-cry of the Federal Opposition has been to the effect that under British law a man is innocent until proven guilty, but in Australia this has not been so for 50 years. Among the State and Federal Acts which place the onus upon an accused person to refute charges are the Commonwealth Crimes Act of 1901, the New South Wales Vagrancy Act of 1902. the Pure Foods Act of 1908, the Liquor Act of 1912. the Commonwealth Income Tax Act of 1936-44, and the Sales Tax Act. the Customs and Excise Acts, and the Irrigation and, Water Conservation Amendment Act of 1943. Though Labour Government held office in the State and Federal Houses for many years during the currency of these Acts, they made no attempt to remove the offending clauses from the Statute Book. A New South Wales Legislative councillor comments: “ The Labour Party does not object to the onus of proof clause when it gets some benefit from it; but it is on dangerous ground when it attacks a similar clause in legislation of national importance merely to gain some political advantage.” The Deputy Leader of the Federal Opposition, Dr H. V. Evatt, says, however. “ Laws used against a minority today may be used against another body tomorrow. In this Bill a person will not know of the charge against him. In the view of the Labour Party this is a denial of justice. The Labour Party will propose a number of amendments not for the purpose of defending Communists, but to ensure that the fundamentals of justice are upheld.”