FEARS UNFOUNDED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27386, 11 May 1950, Page 7

FEARS UNFOUNDED

Eventual Banning Of Labour l Party .1 MR FADDEN’S ASSURANCE New Zealand Press Association—Copyright Rec. 0.15 a.m. CANBERRA, May 10. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chifley, had tried to make unthinking people believe that, as the Government had declared that Communists and Socialists had common objectives, and that as the Government had set out to ban the Communist Party, it was the natural consequence that it would ban the Labour Party, said the Treasurer, Mr J. Fadden, when the second reading debate on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives. “ Nothing is further from the truth.” Mr Fadden said the platform of the Australian Labour Party was identical in basic principles with the manifesto of the Communist Party. The Labour Party did not come within the definition of the Bill and there was no need for anxiety. Unless the Labour Party or any man associated with the Labour movement brought themselves within the definition of the Act, they need not fear that they were going to be banned. “If-there is any undue pessimism in regard to the Labour Party,” Mr Fadden said, “ I am going to suggest to the Government that it write into the Bill a similar clause to that in the Crimes Act, which states: ‘ Nothing in this Act shall delegate from any power or privilege of either House of Parliament, or of members of committees of either House of Parliament as existing at the commencement of this Act.’ ”

Mr C. C. Cameron (Labour, South Australia) said that under the Bill any trade union leader who showed any militancy would be “declared.” He added: “They will say he supports Communist objectives. We want a clear-cut statement from the Government that it will not use the powers of this Bill against militant trade unionists ” Mr Chifley’s Fears “ Not only does this legislation make provision for banning Communism and curtailing liberty of expression, but it goes much further than that,” Mr Chifley said during yesterday’s debate. “ The provisions of this Bill strike at the very heart of justice. They open the door for liars, perjurers and pimps,” said Mr Chifley. “ These people can make charges and damn a man’s reputation, and do it in secrecy without having to substantiate any charges they make.” Mr Chifley said one thing the Labour Party and he believed the people of Australia and Parliament had always held very dear was the right of free expression of opinion. “ The legislation before us abandons that principle.” Repressive legislation of any type directed against minority movements had never succeeded. There was no instance in history of that being done. Mr Chifley said the Government intended to introduce repressive legislation to deal, in a population of 8,000.000 people, with about 89,000 people who had expressed in ballot boxes their preference for Communism. No Appeal Mr Chifley said that anybody declared illegal by the Bill should have the right to have the case against him stated, and to have full appeal. The Bill did not allow this. “ I want to make it perfectly clear that, nothing of a subversive character, either by word or action, will have any support or has had any support from the Labour Party, but there are no subversive words or actions that cannot be dealt with at present under the Crimes Act or under the laws of the Commonwealth or the States.” Mr Chifley said: “ Regarding the abolition of Communism and things directly associated with Communism, we do not oppose a second reading of this Bill. I do not want anybody in this House to think I see any tue in this repressive legislation. “We propose to leave to the Government the task of proving that this type of legislation can be made to work and of producing the results it is claimed it could. As far as the question of known Communists is concerned, we do not propose to oppose that section of the Bill. What we do propose to do is to seek amendments to what we- regard m this Bill as complete breaches of the principles of human justice and liberty.’ Mr Chifley said the Opposition would take up the clause m the Bill which applied to any body of persons, not an industrial organisation, but which was or which purported to be affiliated with the Communist plrty after May 19, 1948. Mr Chifley said it seemed that in this clause there was no right of redress against accused persons to clear themselves, even if there was sqmething whicn would prove them entirely innocent. Onus of Proof The Opposition would also take up the clause in which the onus of proof was thrown on the individual and would seek an amendment of the provision in regard to appeals, and that in regard to search of premises. Mr Chifley said that neither Britain nor the United States had thought such legislation wise or -justifiable. The Canadian Prime Minister, Mr St. Laurent/ had stated that the best way to fight Communism was to make democracy work as a system benefiting no class or creed. It was pathetic that 10 days after the Prime Minister gave names of certain men as Communists, he had to make another correcting this list. (In a statement in . the House of Representatives last • night, Mr Menzies made five corrections to the list of 53 men he named as Communist trade union leaders when he introduced the- Bill on April 27. In each case the corrections applied to the position held by a man m a union). Mr Chifley claimed that legislation of the type of the Bill paved the way either for a totalitarian government or for the destruction of the government which introduced it. , _ Mr P C. Spender, Minister of External Affairs, said the Bill did not deal with activities of individuals, but with a conspiracy against Australia. “ Communists are not a handful of men, who, in unconnected ways, are advancing a political philosophy, he ggid 14 They are a body of men closely knit into a tight organisation designed to destroy Australia.” “ I was surprised to hear Mr Chifley make the apology he did for Communism and conveniently forget what he said about, the Communists only last year,” continued Mr Spender. The Labour Government last winter had brought in legislation during the Communist-inspired coal strike which placed upon an accused person the onus of proving his innocence. It was merely a red herring to say that the Bill was designed to destroy, ns the enemy in Australia was destroying the liberties of the people. The deputy Leader of the Opposition, Dr H. V. Evatt said that while in office Labour had repeatedly taken the strongest possible action against the Communist Party. The Crimes Act contained provisions under which the Government could proceed in the courts to declare unlawful any organsation which advocated the overthrow of the Constitution by violence. “ Test Of Sincerity ”

venting declared Communists from holding office in key trade unions? The caucus decision last week seemed unequivocal, but Mr Chifley’s statement in elaboration of it raised a number of doubts. The Labour Party is known to be heavily divided. Some members support Mr Menzies’s plan; others merely fear the political consequences of resisting it. Others again would block it at any cost, but would be content with emasculation disguised as a freedom-protecting amendment.”

In a leader headed “Test’of Labour's Sincerity on the Communist Bill,” the Sydney Morning Herald says: “ Mr Chifley had an unhappy task in speaking on the Bill. He does not believe |*i banning the Communist Party, or that legislative action to that end can be effective, but the majority decision of caucus obliged him to let the main principles of the Bill go unchallenged. Labour is confining itself to seeking substantial alterations to the clauses dealing with the liberty of the individual. When the amendments foreshadowed by Mr Chifley appear it will be possible to form a clearer judgment of the Opposition's real attitude to the Bill. “ Does Labour genuinely accept the need for, or at any rate the in- „ evitability of. banning the Communist Party and its auxiliaries, and pre-