Ne Temere Bill

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 50, 20 December 1923, Page 21

Ne Temere Bill

INTRODUCED IN NEW SOUTH WALES PARLIAMENT. With an obviously assumed air of innocence (says the Catholic Press for November 29), the Minister for Justice, TV Mr. Ley, moved for leave to introduce the long-expected Ne Temere Bill, which, according to his brief explanation, has two objects: (1) To enable a woman to marry her deceased husband’s brother; (2) to enforce respect for marriages that are made according to the law of the land. Dr. Fallon Objects. When the Minister sat down after a two minutes’ explanation, Dr. Fallon said that any stranger entering the and hearing the perfectly innocent way in which / the Minister asked for leave to introduce the proposed Bill \would imagine that a measure of a non-contentious character was being presented for the consideration of hon. members —one which might go without very much opposition. “I do not think the Minister has done justice to himself, the party responsible for the introduction of the Bill, or to the Government. Even on the first reading the explanation given by the Minister should have been sufficient to convey to hon. members in a Parliamentary sense a knowledge of the agitation which led up to the presentation of this measure. I do not intend to make a second-reading speech at this stage, but I think that right from the outset this Bill should be put in its proper setting, and as one of those who belong to the faith against which, in the view of the public, this measure is aimed it is my duty to contest it at every stage. Mr. Ley: This Bill is not aimed at any faith. Dr. Fallon: It is. The Bill is intended to operate against a decree of the Catholic Church. Mr. Ley: The Bill has no relation to any decree of any Church! Dr. Fallon: I want this Bill to be put in its right setting— this reason : In the view of the public, it is the intention of the Government to legislate against the Ne Temere Decree. Mr. Ley : No, that is not so. The object of this measure is to uphold the law as it exists! Denying the Obvious. Dr. Fallon: In the minds of the public the impression V has been created that it is the intention of the Government, owing to the pressure which has been brought to bear upon it, to legislate against the operation of a decree of the Catholic Church, the Ne Temere Decree. The Minister now says with authority that this is not the intention of the Government, and if that be correct, there will be many disappointed persons in the ranks of the National Party, and among the members of the public outside. If this Bill is not intended to operate against the Ne Temere Decree the Government is shirking the issue, and is failing to keep faith with those people who have urged it to take action in regard to what is alleged to be a very serious matter. In the most reputable and the most disputable of the newspapers every heading has been “Ne Temere Decree Legislation.” While the Minister says it is not the intention of the Government, I say deliberately that for months the hon. member has ignored the challenge which has been issued to him and the Cabinet in connection with this matter. I believe that the Minister upon occasions in the past, in a more or less direct way, has said that it was not the intention of the Government to legislate in this direction, but there has been no authoritative Ministerial expression of opinion in support. Mr. Ley: Yes, there has! Mr. Fallon: I must confess I have not seen it—l have not seen it recently ! Mr. Ley: That is unfortunate I The Minister’s Answers. * Dr. Fallon: It is unfortunate. And if I have not been fortunate enough to see it, I am satisfied that more than h-slf the members of the hon. member’s party have not seen it, or they would not persistently in this House speak about the necessity for introducing a measure deal with the Ne Temere Decree. About six weeks ago one of the hon. members’ supporters asked if it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure to deal with the

infamous Ne Temere Decree.” The Minister’s answer was that that very day he had given notice of a motion for leave to introduce a Bill to deal with that. The word “that,” in my interpretation of the English language, must necessarily refer to the “infamous Ne Temere Decree.” Mr. Ley: I do not think the hon. member is quite fair to me! Dr. Fallon: I refer the Minister to Hansard. He will hud that I am quite correct. I am careful in what I say 1,1 regard to this matter. The question was put by a member of the Nationalist Party, and the Minister had an opportunity to say that it was not the intention of the Government to legislate against the Ne Temere Decree But the hon. member did not take advantage of the opportunity offered, and he allowed the House to come to the conclusion that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill which would operate against the right of the Catholic Church or any Church, to issue decrees in connection with marriage. I make my protest because the Minister has not taken the House into his confidence; he has not disclosed to the public or to hon. members what the Bill purports to be. It might have been wise to allow this measure to go on the first reading as a mere matter of form’ but knowing the public mind on the matter I do not think I could possibly do that, and leave everything for the second-reading stage. The Government must take full Responsibility for its action in this matter. The other evening we had a most interesting, not so much apologia as p ea for the continuance of the life of the Government from Mr. Skelton, a supporter of the Government. Some of his remarks were perfectly ludicrous, and were received with some amusement. Other of his remarks were evidently received with approval by certain supporters of the Government, and the tenor of those remarks was that this Government should be allowed to continue in office, because important things were yet to be carried out. One was the passing of legislation in connection with the Ne Temere Decree Mr Arkins, another supporter of the Government argued in the same way. Mr. Skelton further urged that the Government should be allowed to continue in office because it must legislate against the sweating which c* o es on in certain denominational institutions-the usual chafes of uninformed and ignorant people. Newman said somewhere that ignorance is the root of littleness, and from the tenoi of the statements given expression to in this House' and which are circulated publicly, there is so much littleness abroad that there must be a depth of ignorance in the community. Australian Sentiment. As an Australian I feel very depressed indeed over the outlook for our country if men are not big enough to know one another, and to understand one another. (Applause.) on. members applaud that sentiment; unfortunately it is not practised. If I attempt to be faithful to what 1 believe to be the truth, that in no way diminishes my desire to understand the point of view of other men and to sympathise with them, and as far as I can to like and icspect them. But if I do so, surely as an Australian I have a right to expect the same from them. When the Minister in smooth tones presents the motion for leave to introduce a Bill which he alleges is only to do certain necessary social things, he is neither just nor fair, because he is ignoring the whole of the public agitation which has gone on, and he is not presenting the measure to the House as +1 11 r' it leally is, and that is as part of the programme of the Government, or those members of the Government who answered certain questions prior to the last election. . leie were five or six questions, amongst which was this: Are you prepared to root the Jesuits out of Australia? hat was one of the five or six questions which were asked, and most of them were answered in the affirmative. They could have been epitomised in one short sentence, and candidates could have been asked the simple question Are you prepared to persecute Catholics? After all, that was the sura and substance of the questions put to the candidates the majority of whom answered them in the. affirmative’ upon that occasion. Be frank and honest about it. Make the admission, and take the shame or the credit, of it Do not try to dodge the issue. This Bill should be presented to the House as a measure in part fulfilment of those

promises. It is the first piece of direct sectarian legislation which is intended to fulfil the promises ( made on that occasion. The Minister has skilfully evaded all reference to the contents of the Bill, and in doing that he has not been just to himself nor fair to the House. He cannot evade the issue as easily as that. When the measure comes before the House it should be put in its right setting, and I believe that I can from my point of view on the second reading put this measure in its right perspective, so that no intelligent man can close his eyes to the real purpose of a measure which this Assembly is asked to disgrace itself by passing. Mr. McGirr. Mr. Gregory McGirr: I protest against the hypocrisy of the Minister in introducing such a measure. What do we find? We find that since the Government took office the hon. member has specialised and posed as the boss sectarian of the National Party. That has been his long suit. Now he seeks to introduce a measure to placate the sectarian element in his party, and he is not fair enough to say what the measure stands for. Personally, if I were Mr. Nesbitt or Mr. Skelton, I would strongly object to the issue being shirked in the manner in which the Minister is attempting to shirk it. There are reasons for the Minister’s evasion, and those reasons are the danger politically to the party to which he belongs, because, like all sectarian questions, the question involved in this measure is a thorny one. That is why the hon. member to-night seeks to lead the public to believe that he is a tactician, in the hope that the people will accept him for what he really is not. But the hon. member, with all due respect, can never be charged with being a tactician. He is really the blunderer of the party. He is the Minister who will eventually wreck the Government of which he is a member. For the hon. member to play the role of tactician in his remarks to-night is something unlooked-for. It is a rebuff to members like Mr. Nesbitt, Mr. Weaver, and others who have been staking their political existence on the fact that they were going to down the Catholic section of the community; and it is a rebuff to the particular bodies to which they are pledged, and the particular section of religious thought they are supposed to represent. Yet we find hon. members sitting down quietly and selling the religious denomination to whom they have given an assurance that this would be a sectarian Bill by allowing their Minister, their mouthpiece, to say that it is not a sectarian Bill at all. An Insult to Catholics. This Bill is a direct insult tor every Catholic woman who rears a Catholic family. The Catholic section of this community may only represent a minority, but that minority will count; and hon. members who support this Bill will find at the next election that the womanhood of Australia, which is insulted by this piece of legislation, will assert themselves and oppose them. Whatever the Government intends to do, and whatever legislation the Minister intends to introduce, he cannot injure the great Catholic body of this community, which represents 30 per cent, of the people of New South Wales, and which, within another half-century will represent 50 per cent, of the people. Why? Because its womanhood is producing an Australian race. The law of the Catholic Church prevents prevention; there is no murder of child-life by the Catholic womanhood. The consequence is that whether the Minister legislates or not, the Catholic women of Australia will continue to rear an Australian race. The Government is introducing this measure at the behest of a lot of cranky old dames who have been married for years, but have never reared a child. Today ther are thousands of rich Catholics in the State who are supporting the National Partyfarmers and graziers who have put their money behind the party; but when they see this direct affront to their womanhood they will be forced to vote for some party in opposition to the party which is now insulting them. Here is a direct challenge to them to show where they stand, and where the National Party stands as regards their vote. The hon. member shows the fear that any cowardly politician would show who was not man enough to come in the open and state what is in a particular measure. No wonder the people of New T South Wales are getting sick of politics and politicians.

Mr. Ratcliffe : I desire to ask tlie Minister a question. The motion reads: “That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the impugning of marriages celebrated in accordance with the Marriage Act, 1899, to be unlawful. . . .” Is the law Inadequate with regard to libel? If at the present time a person falsely says another is not married, is not the law of libel sufficient to deal with that person ? Mr. Ley: The law is insufficient at present, and that is the need for imposing a penalty! Mr. Ratcliffe: In what way? Mr. Ley: I will disclose that on the second reading Mr. Gann’s Protest. Mr. Gann : I, too, charge the Minister with cowardice in connection with this matter. In bringing forward a Bill of this character he should certainly, for the information of all religious denominations, say exactly where marriages are being impugned. When this measure was under discussion in the public press, and on the platform, the Chief... Rabbi in a speech said that as far as the Jewish marriage laws were concerned, he would not tolerate any interference from anywhere. I do not think the Church of England stands for this kind of thing either. I believe in marriage being regarded as a sacred vow; I do not believe in any interference with the religious Sacrament of Marriage. I say the Minister shows a lack of courage. At tht last election it was stated on every political platform that this legislation was against the Ne Temere Decree. I asked the Minister on several occasions on the floor of the House as to the meaning of it, but he never gave me a straightforward answer. Mr. Ley; I was postponing it till my second-reading speech! Mr. Gann: It is like the Minister’s twistings and doublings in connection with another questionthat of liquor reform. At the last election he and his party promised an immediate referendum; yet we see the same shifting and twisting. I admit there is no Ne Temere Decree governing me; it cannot interfere with my marriage or with any Presbyterian or Jewish marriage. The laws of those faiths will continue in spite of this legislation, and I ask the Minister now if he is going to tell us where the expediency lies with regard to this Bill. He is trying to make the House, and the people believe he has sugar-coated it by giving my wife the right to marry my brother if I “snuff-out.” That is the sort of humbug and cant that comes from the National Party. My father, as an old Methodist, put in as big a fight in his young days for Catholic emancipation as any man. He was prepared to suffer and die for his faith. Do hon. members opposite think he would have got wildly excited about a Bill to allow his brother to marry my mother if he happened to die? That is the sort of stuff they put up. I do not think there is any demand for this Bill. I do not know any poor woman who wants to marry her dead husband’s brother. If there are such cases the Minister should have given us a list of them. After all the turmoil we have been through in this House, we have the whole of the business of the country held up so that a Bill like this may be introduced. Mr. Molesworth: I wish to know whether the proposed legislation is directed towards any particular decree, whether it will apply to all religions irrespective of what they may be, or whether it is directed at one, two, three, or five religions? Mr. Ley: It is not directed at the doctrinal teachings of any Church whatever! A Complaisant Laborite. Mr. Molesworth: If that be so, I do not see how any hon. member can object to the Bill. I do not see how any member of the Government Party or of the Labor Party can object to legislation which must benefit the workers. It should be our object to absolutely free the worker from all that superstition and thraldom of which he was the subject in the early days, when he did not possess the intelligence he has to-day. - Mr. Mutch: It will not do anything for the good of the worker! ' ■ . . Mr. Molesworth: The Minister has assured me that this legislation is not directed against any religion, and that being the case, no adherents of any religion have any

cause for complaint. As a matter of fact, there is too much religion in Australia. Mr. Oakes: I move: That the question be now put. The House divided: Ayes, 43; noes, 33; majority, 10. Mr. Ley: It was not my intention to make any reply at all at this stage. Mr. Minahan: We were prevented from making speeches by the application of the “gag!'’ Mr. Ley": There was no intention on in} - part to attempt to make any reply, and I could not have replied were it not that some extraordinary statements have been made in respect to the Hill. Some of these statements emanated from Dr. Fallon, whose knowledge, training, and character are such as to justify some attention being given to them. He alleged that this Bill contains provisions designed to attack the tenets of his faith. The value of that statement is at once made apparent from the fact that he admitted that he had. not seen the Bill. When that was pointed out to him, and he was given an assurance by me that no such intention could be found in the Bill, he said that on my part the people of this State and the members of this House had been led to believe that such an intent would be discovered in the Bill. Dr. Fallon: The public has believed for some time from statements which appeared in the press, which have not been authoritatively denied by you as Minister, that this Bill is directed against Ne Temere Decree, which is a doctrine of the Catholic Church! Thrice Denied. Mr. Ley: This Bill is not an attack on the doctrinal - teachings of any Church. Dr. Fallon says that 1 never made this plain to the public outside. This Bill simply provides penalties, and severe ones, too, for any persons who dare to impugn the validity of marriages effectuated according to the law of this land. Mr. Minahan ; Nobody dues that ! Mr. Ley: If, as Mr. ■ Minahan says, nobody impugns them, what is there to fear under this legislation, and why do we find hon. members voting, not only against the introduction of the Bill, but to prevent me from speaking about the contents of the Bill? Mr. Molesworth, the gentleman who speaks one way and votes another —Mr. Facing-two-wayssays that when we, as a Legislature, put laws upon the Statute Book, making certain requirements necessary for the effectuation of marriage, those laws must be upheld. That is all that this measure does. Question —That leave be given to introduce the Bill put. The House divided; Ayes, 47; noes, 34; majority, 13. Question —That the Bill he now read a first time —put. The House divided: Ayes, 48; noes, 34; majority, 14. Ayes; D. M. Anderson, Dr. R. Arthur, W. R. C. Bagnall, R. T. Ball, T. R. Bavin, W. Bennett, A. Bruntnell, Lt.-Col. Bruxner, E. A. Buttenshaw, W. Cameron, Captain Chaffey, Sir Arthur Cocks, Major Connell, M. Cromarty, B. J. Doe,- 1). H. Drummond, W. Scott Fell,' J. C. L. Fitzpatrick, W. R. Fitzsimons, H. Goldstein, T. H. Hill, T. J. Hoskins, J. Jackson, H. V. Jaques, M. Kilpatrick, A. Lane, J. R. Lee, T. J. Ley, E. J. Loxton, H. Main, W. T. Missingham, V. Molesworth, T. IT. Morrow, G. Nesbitt, J. T. Ness, C. W. Oakes, R. S. Perdriau, Sir Chas. Rosenthal, Lt.-Col. Rutledge, Dr. R. Stopford, 11. Y. C. Thorby, R. S. Vincent, R. B. Walker, W. E. Wearne, R. W. D. Weaver, J. C. Wilson. Tellers, J. G. I). Ark ins, W. P. J. Skelton. Noes: J. M. Baddeley, J. Bailey, J. E. Birt, G. Caiiu, J. A. Clarke, M. A. Davidson, W. Davies, 4. Dooley, Captain Dunn, Dr. C. J. Fallon, J. J. Fitzgerald, M. M. Flannery, M. Gosling, E. M. Horsington, T. Keegan, J. T. Lang. C. C. Lazzarini, P. F. Lough I in, A. McClelland, James McGirr, J. J. G. McGirr, W. J. McKell, E. A. AlcTiernan, ' P. J. Minahan, D. Murray, T. I). Mutch, R. E. O’Halloran, 1 W. F. O’Hearn, J. Quirk, W. J. Ratcliffe, W. J. Scully, R. J. Stuart-Robertson. Tellers, R. Greig, C. H. Murphy.