19351011_senate_14_147.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1935-10-11</date>
    <parliament.no>14</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>3</period.no>
    <chamber>SENATE</chamber>
    <page.no>683</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <para class="block">Senate. </para>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1935-10-11</day.start>
      <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch)</inline> took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PAPERS</title>
        <page.no>683</page.no>
        <type>papers</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The following papers were pre sented :  - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>Audit Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1035, No. 97. </para>
        <para>Postand Telegraph Act - Regulations amended- Statutory Rules 1935, No. 93 - No. 95. </para>
        <para>Commonwealth Public Service Act- Appointment - Department of the Interior - W. H. Robertson. </para>
      </quote>
      <para>Australian broadcasting commission. </para>
      <para>Issue of Booklet. </para>
      <para>
        <inline font-weight="bold">Senator B</inline>ADM AN (through <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
      <para>Hardy) asked the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
      <quote>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="1.">
            <para>Is it a -fact that the Broadcasting Commission is advertising through national stations the sale, at1s. per copy, of a book on cricket which ithas compiled? </para>
          </item>
          <item label="2.">
            <para>If so, docs the Government consider this to be fair competition with private enterprise? </para>
          </item>
          <item label="3.">
            <para>Is it a fact that the policy of the Government is re-employment by private enterprise; if so,does the Minister consider that this competition by a public utility with the business of private booksellers, publishers and distributors is in accordance with the letter or spirit of the Broadcasting Commission&#39;s charter? </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </quote>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>683</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KTR</name.id>
            <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
            <party>NAT</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
            <name role="display">Senator A J McLACHLAN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- The answers to the honorable senator&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="1.">
            <para>It is understood that this is a fact. 2 and 3. So far as is known, the policy which is being pursued by the Commission cannot be regarded as giving rise to unfair competition. The commission is apparently acting under the powers conferred on it by Parliament, as laid down in section 17 of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act.  invalid and old-age pensions. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para>Payment by Cheque. </para>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator DEIN</inline>(through <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
        <para>Foll) asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>Will lie consider the advisability of extending the principle&#39; of cheque payments to pensioners (old-age and invalid) in order to save  many of these unfortunate people great inconvenience, and also to protect them from certain people w ho exact a commission tor drawing their pensions for them &#39; </para>
        </quote>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir GEORGE</inline>PEARCE.The Treasurer has supplied the following answer : - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>Any pensioner who is unable to collect his pension personally, and cannot obtain a suitable person to collect it on hia behalf, may obtain payment by cheque. The department will not countenance the making of a charge by any person for collecting a pension on behalf of a pensioner. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>684</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES</title>
          <page.no>684</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Banking Business</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>684</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Is the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited conducting all its financial business through the Common wealth Bank; if not, why not? </para>
          </quote>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir GEORGE</inline>PEARCE.,The  Treasurer lias supplied the following answer: - <inline font-style="italic">l</inline> am advised that Commonwealth Oil </para>
          <para class="block">Refineries Limited conducts the whole of its banking business through the Commonwealth Bank. In certain country districts, where there is no branch of the Commonwealth Bank, receiving offices of other banks act as agents of the Commonwealth Bank. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LOAN APPROPRIATION BILL 193S</title>
        <page.no>684</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">SECOND Reading. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>684</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K0F</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party>UAP</party>
            <role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
            <name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>&#91;11.6&#93;.- I move- </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>That Hie bill be now read a second time.&#39; </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">Although this measure lias a somewhat high-sounding title it is a small bill.  It  appropriates for works &#163;170,000 from loan funds, the raising of which was authorized by Parliament in legislation passed last. year. The total of the- loan estimates for 1935-3G is &#163;5,243,506. This total includes &#163;3,000,000 for this year&#39;s estimated requirements under the Farmers&#39; Debt Adjustment  Act  and &#163;1,216,750 for financial assistance,  to  the States for unemployment relief works, &#38;c. These amounts are covered  by  appropriations passed during 1.934-35. The balance of the loan estimates, namely, &#163;1,026,756, is for expenditure on Commonwealth works during this financial year. Of this total, &#163;856,750 represents the balance of the loan appropriations passed last year for this purpose, leaving only the sum of &#163;170,000 for which further parliamentary appropriation is now required. The amount&#39; of &#163;170,000 for which provision is made in the bill is for works in the Federal Capital Territory and includes &#163;100,000 towards the cost, of developmental work incidental to the transfer of staffs to Canberra. This sum will be expended on the commence-ment of the construction of office accommodation, the erection of cottages which will be required for officers who are to be transferred to Canberra, and necessary engineering services. As honorable senators are aware, the Government has approved of the return to Duntroon of the Royal Military College. Therefore &#163;70,000 has been included in the bill for the provision of architectural and engineering services incidental to the erection of cottages for occupation by tenants who are at present housed in cottages at Duntroon. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>684</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K7P</name.id>
            <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
            <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  Honorable senators on this side of the chamber will not offer any opposition to the speedy passage of this bill, because they are glad that thi: Government is, somewhat tardily, doing the right thing by the Federal Capital Territory. In regard to the proposed expenditure of &#163;100,000 towards the -cost of developmental works incidental to the transfer of staffs to Canberra, I am disappointed to find that provision has not been made directly or indirectly, to improve the conditions &#39;of persons living at . the Molonglo and Causeway settlements. I do not wish to establish a reputation  foi  always harping on the one subject; but the position which exists in these settlements is, putting it mildly, so objectionable and- so discreditable, that I cannot understand why the Government allows it to continue. The. cottages at the Causeway and Molonglo, which are built of single weatherboards, were erected for the accommodation of German internees, and were never intended to be used as permanent residences. Matters developed in such a way that &#39;our own people are now occupying them. There is no need for me to go into those details which I have so often recited in this chamber, but I should like to mention that the timber in the framework of the windows has shrunk to such an extent that the wind and weather is kept out only by stuffing newspapers into the crevices. That is a good way in which to use many newspapers, of which I have some knowledge. I read a paragraph the other day to the effect that good white paper manufactured from clean rags is used by newspaper editors upon which to print lies. Will the Leader of the Senate state whether the expenditure of  &#163;50,000  would enable a start to be made on the provision of more suitable cottages for these people ? </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Provision is made in the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill passed by the Senate last night for the erection of cottages. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes ; but those cottages will not be occupied by families now living at the Causeway and Molonglo ; they are being erected to house persons who can afford a better type of dwelling. I should like honorable sena.tors to visit these settlements, and if they wish to do so I shall be prepared to pay my proportion of the cost of hiring a bus for the purpose. They should go into the homes, as I did, and ascertain the unsatisfactory conditions under which the tenants are living. Many of the men who have been out of work for long periods, are being pressed by private firms acting as agents for the Government, for arrears of rent, and some are likely to be sued as they cannot pay the rent charged for these terrible shacks. We intend to support the bill, because it is obviously the intention of the Government to do a measure of justice to the Federal Capital Territory, and because the expenditure will provide employment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>685</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K6P</name.id>
            <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
            <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  Provision is made in the bill foi- the appropriation of  &#163;59,500  for architectural services. Is that amount being spent solely on architectural work? </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That amount is for various services, and not merely for architectural work. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6P</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- When I visited tho Molonglo and Causeway settlements, I found that the houses, some of which I inspected very closely both inside and out, are a disgrace to Canberra, and par- ticularly to this Government. In one cottage the occupant had erected a tent fly to prevent the rain which was leaking through the roof from reaching the bed. A private landlord would soon find himself in trouble if such conditions were known to exist in buildings owned by him. It is the duty of the Government to see that its tenants are properly accommodated. Canberra is destined to be the garden city of the Commonwealth; but it cannot rightly claim that distinction while the unsatisfactory buildings now at Molonglo and Causeway remain. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
        <para class="italic">
          <inline font-style="italic">In committee:</inline>
        </para>
        <para>Clause  1  agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause  2  (Issue and application of  &#163;170,000). </para>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir</inline>GEORGE PEARCE  (Western Australia - Minister for External Affairs)-  &#91;11.16&#93;. -  I wish to correct a wrong impression in the mind of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Collings</inline> that the Commonwealth is employing agents to collect rents from Canberra tenants. That practice has been discontinued, and rents are now collected by the officers of the department. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Collings</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am glad to hear that. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir GEORGE</inline>PEARCE.Both <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Collings</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brown</inline> seem to assume that it is the duty of the Government to provide a home in Canberra for every person who seeks one. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Collings</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I did not say that. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>685</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not think that those honorable senators would apply the same reasoning to Brisbane. There is no obligation on the part of the Government to provide homes in Canberra for all who desire them. People who come here voluntarily have some responsibility in the provision of homes for. themselves, as in other capital cities. There may be some obligation on the Government to find other homes for those of its tenants who will be dispossessed of the buildings they now occupy at Duntroon, but the Government does not admit that it has a responsibility to provide homes in the Capital City for all who desire them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>685</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K7P</name.id>
            <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
            <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The Leader, of the Senate <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Pearce)</inline> referred to Brisbane. In no part of Queensland are there tenements comparable with those at Molonglo and Causeway, to which I referred. I did not say that it is the duty of the Government of the Commonwealth or of Queensland to provide a home for every one who wants to live in either Canberra or Brisbane; but I do say that the Commonwealth Government, as the landlord of these wretched places at Molonglo and Causeway, ought to be ashamed of itself, and should give to its tenants an opportunity to occupy better homes. The buildings which they now occupy were provided for those workers whom the government of the day was exceedingly glad to obtain in the initial stage of the building of this city. I have no desire to embarrass the &#39;Government, because my long experience in municipalities and in State and Federal governments has given me a knowledge of the responsibilities of office; but I say that it is the duty of the Government to have regard to the needs of the &#34; under dog &#34; before launching out on fantastic schemes for the benefit of those who are much better circumstanced. I hope that the Leader of the Senate will not think that, in referring to these unsatisfactory dwellings, the Opposition has indulged in captious criticism. I would indeed be glad if the right honorable gentleman were to say that the Government had decided to spend, say &#163;40,000 in erecting suitable cottages for the people now occupying these unhealthy tenements. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>686</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KAY</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GIBSON, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GIBSON</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- Instead of being a landlord in this capital city, the Government should encourage private enterprise to erect buildings for the people. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>686</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Collings</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The leasehold system- is the only thing which will save Canberra from disaster. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>686</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KAY</name.id>
            <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
            <party>CP</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GIBSON, William</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GIBSON</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- Were the Government to leave the erection of homes to private enterprise, it would not be subject to criticism as a landlord. I hope that the Government will build as few homes as possible here, but will encourage private enterprise to do so. I hope, moreover, that the buildings which are to be erected &#39;by the Government will be carried out by contract, not by day labour. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>686</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K0F</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The policy of the Government <inline font-style="italic">is</inline> to have these works done by contract. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>686</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KS9</name.id>
            <electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
            <party>ALP; FLP from 1932</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MACDONALD, John Valentine</name>
            <name role="display">Senator J V MACDONALD</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The sum of &#163;100,000 is to be appropriated by this bill towards the cost of developmental works incidental to the transfer of staffs to Canberra. Already, as has been pointed out this morning, considerable difficulty is experienced in securing homes in Canberra, and it would appear that if further transfers of . public servants are made, that difficulty will be accentuated. I should like the Minister to say when the staffs still remaining in Melbourne are likely to be transferred ? </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>With reference to the remarks of SenatorLeckie, I should like to say that it would be a bad day for Australia if private ownership of land in the national capital were permitted. In this almost sacred area no encouragement should be given to speculators and profiteers. </para>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir GEORGE</inline>PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for External Affairs) &#91;11.25&#93;. - The amount of &#163;100,000 is to meet preliminary expenses incidental to the transfer of the departments still remaining in Melbourne. The work of transferring them cannot be completed in a day; a good deal of office and other accommodation must first be provided. The expenditure proposed will enable a beginning to be made. </para>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Schedule and title agreed to. </para>
        <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
        <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CRIMES BILL 1935</title>
        <page.no>686</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>686</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from the 2nd October, <inline font-style="italic">(vide</inline> page 384), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brennan</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the bill be now read . a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>686</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - This bill is one of the most important measures which has ever come before this chamber. It is important in that honorable senators may so easily be led astray by their preconceived notions and prejudices and mistake it for something entirely different from what it really is. I pass on to the Senate, particularly the Minister who moved the second reading, the following quotation which I read recently: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Society has just two moral enemies - the man who will not speak his mind, and the man who tries to close the mouths of those who do not think as he does. </para>
            <para class="block">The Opposition will fight this bill at every stage, using the forms of the Senate to place its case before the people of Australia. It is not so foolish as to believe that it can defeat the hill, because it knows that honorable senators opposite have already made up their minds concerning the measure, and that the Government, with their support, will secure its passage through the Senate. The bill is essentially one for consideration in committee; and it is there that the Opposition will most strenuously oppose it. &#34;We have often heard it said that a decision can be arrived at without prejudice. The words &#34; without prejudice&#34; frequently appear in legal documents, but an article I read recently said that a citizen without prejudice does not exist, and that there is no such thing as a judge without prejudice. It went on to say that when a judge passes sentence on a prisoner he merely, through the individual in the dock, punishes himself for crimes which he has sub-consciously committed. Those who have read anything of psycho-analysis know that nothing is really as it appears to be on the surface. &#34;We are ail of us more or less masquerading as something which we have no claim to be. The reason why I stress that is that I want honorable senators to approach this matter calmly and without prejudice, otherwise wrong decisions will be reached. The whole of this bill shows that it has been drafted in a spirit of fear entirely antiAustralian, a spirit which is the greatest of all the enemies of human kind. Every bill prepared by official draftsmen under instructions from the Government and brought before this chamber should be drafted in a spirit of hope in all that is best in this great Australian continent of ours and not in the spirit of that worst of all human enemies, fear. We should have both faith and hope in the Australian people and in the future of this  country.  Are we going to sit here like cowering wretches discussing a bill and casting our vote upon it as people with no conception of the historic mission of the Australian people, as people unacquainted with the type of citizen sent here from our kith and kin across the seas to lay the foundations of this country? Most of us in this assembly are elderly men. Are we in such a craven atmosphere mentally that we think all wisdom will expire when we expire? God help Australia if that is the position ! We will be recreant to our faith in this wonderful continent and to our belief in ite future possibilities if we pass this bill because it has been cast in a hopeless spirit of fear. </para>
            <para>Let us consider for . a few moments the history of Australia. My parents emigrated to this country from the south of England a long time after the arrival of convicts on Australian shores. At that time I was young enough and enthusiastic enough - and I owe a tremendous lot both mentally and physically to my parents - to appreciate Australia and its history, and all that had happened in it and to it. I realized that hundreds of men and women had been sent into this country convicted only of political offences. It would make an interesting topic for discussion in this chamber if I could pass before the mental vision of honorable senators all the things that have happened in Australia. I knew some of the people who were transported to this country for political reasons. On the ship in which I arrived in Australia there  were  five or six families who had left the. Old Country because of their political convictions. The primary reason for their decision to emigrate to Australia was probably thesame as that which brought about theemigration of my own family - father, mother and seven children - that there wasno chance in the Old Country for an. honest .man to get a living which would enable him to retain his pride. Five or six families on that ship left England because of the persecution to which they were subjected because they would not submit to what was then the orthodox view, When I say that, honorable senators may get some idea of how I appreciate my residence of considerably more than half a century in this wonderful country. I well remember in the Old Country when my father&#39;s 25s. was due on Saturday night, journeying into the city and standing over the grating in front of one of the largest emporiums, and my father handing up to me through the grating his weekly wages. When I took his wages home, I used to sit with my mother and jot down on the bellows at the fireside with a piece of chalk how that 25s. was to go round, and cover the needs of our family for the ensuing week. When I came to this country I was so embittered against England that I endeavoured to forget I had ever had any connexion with it, remembering only that I was now in the new land of Australia which offered a chance for every honest man and woman to build up a social order that would be worth while. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>688</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Does the Leader of the Opposition suggest that we can build up a continent without a penal code? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>688</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not. suggest anything of the kind, and before I conclude my remarks I shall endeavour to demonstrate that. I have lived long enough to see all the things which in my youth were regarded as unorthodox, nonpermissible and punishable by law, become the orthodoxy of to-day. Yet because of the craven fear of those responsible for this bill, because they have no faith in the people of Australia, and because they believe, apparently, that with the passing of this generation all -wisdom will die, it is proposed to penalize people for ideas which will be the accepted orthodoxy of the years to come. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>688</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Does the Leader of the Opposition say that this bill is harsher than the penal code of any other country? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>688</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I hope that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hardy</inline> will not overdo the &#34; young man in a hurry &#34; act. If, when I resume my seat, I have failed to make a clear statement of my case, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hardy</inline> will have ample opportuity  to tear my presentation to pieces. I take it that some honorable senators present to-day were probably engaged in mining in the early days of Australian history, and that they have heard of a certain incident known in history as the Eureka Stockade. Australia is not ashamed of that incident, nor am I. I am proud of the fact that my forbears were prepared at all costs to themselves to defy the authorities of the day. They demanded their rights, and they got them. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hardy</inline> wants to know if we could have got along without a penal code. In all ages people in positions of authority have sought to impose their will by force on those not in a position of authority. The actuating motive has not always been the same except that reliance has always been on force and fear. You may exterminate the enemies of to-day, but to-morrow they will rise from the ground ten thousand times stronger. In Austria, Italy and Germany the best elements in the community have been driven underground by just such measures as we are discussing here to-day. Those elements have been driven underground because the opinions they have expressed do not suit those in place and power. I do not suggest that we should not have penal laws, nor do I find any fault with our present form of constitutional government. On the contrary, recent happenings in Europe are the best indication of the fact that with a limited monarchy and our present parliamentary institutions British people have the best form of government known to the world. But the best of our liberties are not based on a penal code of this drastic nature. It i3 impossible to place in proper review all the facts, ideas and ideals which I should like honorable senators to have in front of them before they cast their vote on this measure; but in order to show the position we have reached, let us look back along the road over which we have passed. In this way we will get some idea of the road along which we must travel if we are to reach our goal - the fulfilment of Australia&#39;s historic mission as a great democracy in the southern seas. The Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Argus</inline> of the 10th November, 1S54, published the following : - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>EXECUTIONS AT GEELONG</title>
        <page.no>688</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">Roberts and Gunn, the former convicted of murder and the latter of administering poison, underwent the extreme penalty of the law this morning at the time mid place appointed. As usual on such occasions in other towns, a large concourse of |)eople assembled to feast their depraved appetites on &#34;the pleasures of death.&#34; And among these were many respectably dressed females and a great many children. This is, I believe, the first public executionthat ever disgraced Geelong, and I hope it may be the last. The sooner the Private Execution Bill is made law the better. </para>
      <interjection>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>689</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
            <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- We have no provisions of that nature in this bill. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </interjection>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>689</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K7P</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
            <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I am disappointed by that interjection; I am endeavouring to lift this discussion to the highest possible plane, and to convince honorable senators who are supporting the Government that they are wrong and can never be right while they retain the inhibitions and prejudices they have today. Yet the best I can get from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brennan,</inline> who is sponsoring the measure, is a smirk of smug satisfaction, because he has said something which he regards as witty. Queensland was the first Australian State to abolish capital punishment. When I was much younger, I took an active part in the campaign to do away with the death penalty, and the propaganda for that purpose was most unpopular. Long before those days British criminal code punished with death 32 crimes, ranging from sheep-stealing to murder. Every one of those crimes was rampant in that period of the world&#39;s history, but capital punishment was no deterrent. The repressive measures taken did not accomplish their objective. Gradually we overcame prejudices and modified the harsh legislation until we achieved the abolition of capital punishment in many countries. A tremendous reduction in the number of those crimes resulted, some of them disappearing altogether, and the numbers of others becoming negligibly small. I mention those facts not to extol the abolition of capital punishment, but to illustrate my contention that repressive measures do not achieve their purpose. The <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> of the 16th November, 1934, printed a significant article from Shanghai, entitled &#34;Battle of Sexes: Chinese Women&#39;s Victory. Law to be Revised.&#34; The women of &#39;China gained a remarkable victory, in that they have shaken themselves free of some of the age-old customs which bound them in mental and other forms of slavery. In Australia, too, the movement towards emancipation must continue, despite a repressive penal code. One writer has put it - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>Blessed are they who were not satisfied to let well enough alone. </para>
          <para>All that the world is to-day we owe to them. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>From the <inline font-style="italic">Canberra Times</inline> of the same date, I took this extract - </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>MARRIAGE LAWS</title>
        <page.no>689</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Proposed Certification of Fitness</title>
          <page.no>689</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>London, Wednesday</title>
          <page.no>689</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>In the House of Lords, Lord Kilmaine moved in favour of the amendment of the marriage laws to make it obligatory on both parties to a proposed marriage to produce a medical certificate of fitness. </para>
        <para>Many years ago my father took a prominent part in reform movements, and he was ostracized because he had the courage to say that Britons would ultimately become a decadent race unless they established some standard to ensure the fitness of persons about to be married. When I want beautiful roses - and Canberra is the home of beautiful roses - I secure the best available stocks; then I plant them in the right soil and position, where they will receive the benefits of the sun and the necessary shelter. I see that the bushes have every possible chance, knowing that only in this way can they produce perfect blooms. If I want a perfect racehorse I obtain the best sire and dam and give the foal every chance before and after it is born. But the methods that are considered necessary and profitable in the garden and on the stud farm are apparently too good to be applied to the human race. The nations of the world will become decadent and will fail if the present methods of breeding the human race continue. Any two persons of opposite sexes can mate. If they have children, well and good ; if they have not, still well and good. It is regrettable that persons about to marry are not compelled to submit themselves for examination in order to ensure that the offspring will be healthy, physically and mentally. Unfortunately Australia does not appreciate the value of a thorough policy to bring it abreast of modern thought on. eugenics. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>689</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Do I understand that the honorable senator wants to bring human beings up to the level of racehorses ? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>689</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7P</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am glad to have the interjection; it discloses more than anything else the inferiority complex of the honorable senator and his incapacity to understand a reasoned argument. Until we are prepared to give human beings the same chance as we give to racehorses we shall have little cause to be proud of the children we rear. I anticipate that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brennan</inline> will say that eugenics are not referred to in this bill. I am well aware of that. I am judging the bill, not so much by what it says, as by what it leaves unsaid. &#34;When I was young theories such  as eugenics were &#34; tabu &#34;. I shall have none of these measures, because in my youth the same repression as is here proposed was applied to me and others who advocated the unorthodox and unconventional. Once upon a time <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> belonged to the same political party as I do, and I figuratively sat at his feet and paid him reverence because he was then and still is a very capable man. But the time came when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> informed me that he controlled a secret service in Australia superior to any in the world, adding - &#34; Collings, you cannot open your mouth without my knowing of it in Melbourne within 24 hours &#34;. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> cannot expect me to approach this bill with equanimity. I have been for many years what is called an agitator - an advocate of unorthodox ideas - and I have been dismissed from my employment and ostracized both socially and economically because of my enunciation of birth control and other advanced ideas which since have come to be generally accepted. This bill will penalize succeeding generations if they in their turn happen to hold unorthodox ideas. One of the greatest intellects in the world to-day, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. G.</inline> B. Shaw, said - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Man raises himself from mere consciousness to knowledge- </para>
          </quote>
          <para>I hope <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brennan</inline> is paying attention. A toad in a hole has consciousness but not knowedge  - by daring more and more to face facts and tell himself the truth. </para>
          <para class="block">That is what I want honorable senators to do now. I have two copies of a publication entitled <inline font-style="italic">The Soviets To-day,</inline> and in order that I shall not be misunderstood, for I know I shall be misinterpreted, I emphasize that I have no sympathy with any of the activities of the Communist party in Australia. As the official organizer of the Australian Labour party in Queensland, I assisted in drafting every resolution which expelled the communists from membership of that organization. The Australian Labour party does not deny to communists the right. to propagate their ideas, but it has created a political structure, and will not allow any section - whether communists, vegetarians, or calathumpians - to carry on propaganda within that organization. The Postmaster-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator A. J. McLachlan)</inline> placed an embargo on <inline font-style="italic">The Soviets To-day.</inline> I wonder if .he ever saw it. I have read these copies and consider them remarkable productions. Not one word of propaganda is contained in them, unless the publication of the news of what is going on in Russia can be deemed to be propaganda. I shall lay these papers on the table of the chamber and I hope that honorable senators will find an opportunity to peruse them. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>690</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is the penal code in Russia more liberal than that in Australia ? . </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>690</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not propose to engage in a dissertation on Russia. I do not believe it is possible to put the Soviet policy into effect in Australia nor do I believe that it will ever be introduced here. Nevertheless, Sovietism is the only policy possible for the vast country of Russia, considering its present stage of development and its historical background. The Russian people are entitled to the system they have, but I would not support its introduction in Australia. I warn honorable senators, however, against the danger of disregarding what is happening in Russia. The greatest social experiment in the world&#39;s history is proceeding there and if honorable senators are wilfully blind to what is happening they will not be worthy representatives of the Australian people. They may not approve or disapprove of this remarkable social experiment but at least they should try to understand it. The titles of some of the articles in <inline font-style="italic">The Soviets To-day</inline> are - &#34; The Central Association Soviet Republic &#34;, &#34; Hollywood Recognizes Soviet Art &#39;&#34;, &#34; Soviet Election, Exclusive News &#34;. There is nothing wrong with those subjects. In my opinion it was a disgrace to prevent these publications from coming through the post, and I say that after having been responsible for driving the Friends of the Soviet Union out of the Australian Labour party organization in Queensland. I have made it my business to find out what the off-shoots of communism are. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>691</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Does the honorable senator consider that the Friends of the Soviet Union should be declared an unlawful organization ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>691</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No ; and if it is declared unlawful, such action will be a disgrace to the intellectual standards of this country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>691</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Legal proceedings have been commenced with a view to having the Friends of the Soviet Union declared an unlawful association. The matter is therefore <inline font-style="italic">sub judice</inline> and, according to previous rulings in the Senate, may not be debated. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>691</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I agree, and I remind the Assistant Minister that any remarks which I have made in this connexion were in reply to leading questions, in the form of interjections, but I shall desist. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>My purpose is to emphasize the iniquitous nature of the provisions contained in the bill. I am completely at a loss to understand why its framers have not been able to improve on provisions in earlier legislation of similar character, and have managed to include in it so many repressive provisions calculated to impede intellectual and economic progress. I have in my hand two publications printed in Great Britain, which I commend to honorable senators. <inline font-style="italic">Labor,</inline> the title of one, contains a number of contributions from some of the greatest thinkers in the Mother Country. Haphazard, I select the following from an article written by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hector</inline> Hughes, K.C.- </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Idealists have talked and lyric poets have sung of our glorious liberties. They have reminded us that - </para>
            <para>This England, this whitefaced shore, </para>
            <para>Whose foot spurns back themain </para>
            <para>And coops from other lands her islanders, garners many other things as well. Her characteristic faculty shrewdly practised for trying it on the dog enables her to profit by political and economic experiments on other peoples. Ten years of Fascism in Italy, and some months of Naziism in Germany, alike provide spectacles upon which she gazes, with a selective and discerning eye. The Mosleys and others may rush wildly down either of those steep places into the sea of political experiment and perhaps oblivion. But this stolid island race remains unmoved, secure in the liberties for which its forefathers bled and died. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Yet this bill, which we are now asked to approve, makes a direct assault upon cherished principles for which, in the Mother Country, the forefathers of some of us fought and died. The measure is a futile effort on the part of the Government to deal with certain conditions allegedly existing in this country. One section of it deals particularly with, espionage and the defence of the Commonwealth; the other relates more particularly to political matters. &#34;When the bill is in committee, I shall have something to say about those obnoxious provisions. I am not so much concerned about that section of the bill dealing with espionage, because I know that it is the duty of the Government to provide legislative safeguards for the Australian navy, army, and air force. Yesterday, one honorable senator who, I think, is in the chamber &#34;at this moment, very truthfully declared, &#34; If you have a contented service; if you treat men properly and give them decent food, you need never fear revolution.&#34;  His  observation puts the position in a nutshell. It is the hungry man, the man who has been unjustly treated by his superiors, the man who is made to understand his position ofinferiority in the scheme of things, whether it be in the army, navy, or air force, who is ripe for treason. So I say that if we put our own house in order; if we see that men are treated as human beings and not as so many cogs in a machine without having the right to speak or act when they so desire, there will be no need for repressive legislation like the bill now before this chamber. But it is in relation to those provisions of the bill dealing with political matters that I wish to be a little more definite. </para>
          <para>We have been told that, as regards the defence of Australia, the bill will bring Australia into line with the Mother Country. What a wonderful statement! I hope that I shall not be out of order if I say to Government supporters that if they knew what was going on behind the scenes in this country they would surely know that legislation similar to the bill which we are now considering was adopted in Great Britain fifteen years ago. Apparently, the wiseacres in this Government have at last awakened to the fact that legislation which was in force fifteen years ago in England is necessary to prevent this country from getting into trouble! Let me tell the Assistant Minister, if he does not already know it, that when Lord Peel introduced the Official Secrets Act in the British Parliament, he stated, in effect, that it embodied the war experiences of the Mother Country in countering espionage. The Assistant Minister, in moving the second reading of this bill, said that when forwarding to the Governor-General a copy of the English act, the Secretary of State stated that its main features were regarded by the Army Council &#34;as of the utmost importance from the point of view of defence.&#34; The Official Secrets Act, I repeat, was passed in Great Britain in 1920, and as this bill is modelled on that measure, it is. a very belated attempt to bring the Commonwealth into line with the legislation of the Mother Country. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>692</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SAMPSON, Burford</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sampson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Better late than never. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>692</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-style="italic">1</inline> agree with the honorable senator, but I arn. constrained to add that the Government and its supporters are always late, and they never succeed in doing anything to bring this country into line with the best thought in England or other parts of the world. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>It is interesting to note that the bill is the outcome of suggestions made by the Army Council, but as fifteen years have passed since the Official Secrets Act was passed, it can ^hardly be urged that there is need to hurry. Do Government supporters really think that they know what is happening on the other side, of the world? Do they natter themselves that their information regarding events in Italy and Abyssinia is quite up to date? Have they not yet awakened to the fact that this Parliament - the Senate and the House of Representatives - is only a pawn in the game of international politics, and that the Government moves at the dictation of other people, some of whom are actuated by the most sordid motives? Do they not know that there is no war on with Australia? This being so, why this haste in preparing for war! </para>
          <para>The Leader of the Senate <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Pearce),</inline> who for many years occupied the position of Minister for Defence, and, notwithstanding his somewhat circumscribed outlook, discharged his duties very ably, will probably tell us that the bill is necessary for the protection of Australia. All this foolish talk of protecting the Commonwealth is based on a false premise. If we really desire to protect Australia from aggression, we must prepare to withstand the Strongest nation that is likely to attempt sovereignty over us. But let us face the facts. &#34;Who expects the 7,000,000 of people - men, women, and children - in Australia to do anything of the kind? We know, of course, that all this talk about the bill being designed to ensure our adequate defence is so much twaddle. &#34; <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sampson.</inline> - Does not the honorable senator believe that we can protect ourselves? </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>692</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I believe that we can contribute our quota to the adequate defence of Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>692</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SAMPSON, Burford</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sampson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Our quota! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>692</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am well aware that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sampson,</inline> as an experienced soldier, will seek to find a loop-hole in my argument. I used the words &#34; adequate defence &#34; deliberately, because I do not agree with the soldier senators that there is only one way in which we can ensure the defence of this country. If we can fill Australia with a contented population, if we can abolish slums in our capital cities, if we can do away with poverty among the. people and so put aeacon light in the window of this great southern democracy as a guide to other nations, we shall be able to claim that we have taken some measures necessary for its adequate defence. &#34;We shall not achieve this end by following the course indicated by the Leader of the Senate, who, in answer to a question a few days ago, as to what was being done at the munitions factory at Maribyrnong, in Victoria, said that the Government did not intend to interfere with private enterprise to a greater extent than was necessary - that its desire was to ensure the training of a corps of operatives who would be able to render good service to this country in times of national emergency. But on every occasion when protective duties are under discussion in this chamber - measures calculated to contribute to the adequate defence of this country - many Government supporters rise in their places to oppose them, and shed crocodile tears about the awful fate of our primary producers, because they may be obliged to pay a little more for galvanized iron, or barbed wire. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <list type="upperalpha-dotted">
            <item label="J.">
              <para>intend to take  ari  early opportunity to state in the Senate a complete case for the utilization of our vast coal and shale resources, for, despite what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator A.</inline> J. McLachlan has said about the difficulty of developing these resources on an economic basis, I know that it can he done, and <inline font-style="italic">I</inline> shall put forward convincing evidence in support of my views. When we have developed our known resources in oil from coal and shale to a stage at which we are independent of outside sources, we shall have gone a long way towards providing for the adequate defence of Australia. I have enough faith in Australians - if we are not all native-born, the majority of us come from grand old British stock - to believe that we can work out our own destiny, and that, if we have a contented population, our citizens will not be found wanting in time of national need. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>693</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SAMPSON, Burford</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sampson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In the future, as in the past, the honorable senator would leave the defence of Australia, to private enterprise. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>693</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I know what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sampson</inline> means, and he knows what I am  thinking. Profiteering was so rampant in connexion with the manufacture of munitions during the last war that eventually the war government in Great Britain had to take action, and pillory the thieves. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch).</inline> - The honorable senator is not discussing the subject-matter of the bill. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>693</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The bill has been framed in a spirit of fear, instead of a spirit of hope. The atmosphere of war, fear and secrecy which surrounds it is entirely <inline font-style="italic">wrong.</inline> I am wondering when we shall have the courage, when talking about the adequate defence of Australia, to set up a peace council instead of an army council, and appoint a minister for peace in the Cabinet. Peace is not attained by repressive legislation. Hyde Park, London, is regularly the venue of great political gatherings, which are harangued by leaders of various sections of thought, but no one in the Mother Country worries about, what is likely to happen; such gatherings are regarded as a safety valve. The good sense of the people can be trusted to assess at their true worth statements made at all such political gatherings. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>It is significant, that repressive legislation is always directed against the workclasses. I may be mistaken but I feel sure it is always the workers who suffer. What action has the Government ever taken to prevent men like Eric Campbell and De Groot, two prominent members of the Nev/ Guard, to foment insurrection in our midst? In the early part of 1931 there was a strong probability - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brand</inline> will be able to bear me out in this - of insurrection in Sydney. I know that the large firms had instructed their employees to be ready for a raid which did not occur. It was said that a Labour red army was to march up Macquarie-street, and that the New Guard under Campbell and De Groot and persons of that type was to attempt to suppress a raid - a raid which did not eventuate, because the New Guard, faced with the possibility of retaliatory action, became afraid. The Government should establish a peace council instead of allowing a defence council to function. We should have a Minister for peace instead of a Minister for Defence. We should devise ways and means to dispense with war. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>693</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- One means to prevent war has been devised, and the members of the party to which the honorable senator belongs attacked it last week. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>693</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am willing to stand my ground and to substantiate what I said last week or this week. Freedom and liberty of speech are the greatest principles for which mankind has fought throughout the ages. Thoughts are useless unless translated into words, and <inline font-style="italic">words are</inline> equally futile unless translated into action. This bill is deliberately designed to prevent the people of this country from having any opinion&#39;s of their own. We can go back to the time when the greatest teacher the world has ever known appeared on earth, and in turning back the pages of history, we find that Bte came into the arena with a revolutionary doctrine which did not suit the authorities at that time. It was decided that He must be suppressed and on Calvary He was crucified. This bill suggests that another Calvary is being erected and those who wish to speak the truth will again be persecuted. The attempt of the Government to suppress freedom of speech will bring about renewed vigour on the part of some individuals, and before long Ministers will have to eat heir words as others who have endeavoured to suppress the liberties of the people have already been compelled to do. I have complete confidence in the Australian people, and in. the policy of the Australian Labour party. These two factors combined should be more, than sufficient to combat any extreme  doctrines  which may be enunciated. The laws at present on the statute-book relating to sedition have not been brought into operation. <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Gordon</inline> Hewart, in defending the Officials Secrets Bill in the House of Commons on the 10 th December, 1920, said - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>It is quite evident from what he (.LieutenantCommander  Kenworthy)  said that lie still cherished the belief that in some way or other this bill is aimed at opinion or at the suppression of opinion. Nothing could bc further from the truth. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This measure reeks from end to end of an attempt to suppress the free expression of opinion. Why is this Government incapable of getting away from a fear complex? What is wrong with the Australian people? During a century and a half this uountry has been .developed politically to a greater extent than any other country. The introduction of a cast iron discipline of this character suggests that the Australian people cannot be trusted. On the 19th October, 1910, the late <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Alfred</inline> Deakin said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Are we not prepared to trust the people of Australia after next year with some competence for dealing with any situation when it arises? Are we not prepared to trust them to meet any emergencies and difficulties if they arise and when they arise? Is all wisdom to die with us  and  all power to meet emergencies and contingencies to be strapped down by a statute-book? </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Fancy we poor souls in this chamber sticking our thumbs into the  armholes  of our vests and, with a wonderful air of superiority and dignity, suggesting that all wisdom will die with us! <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline> continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>It is our children that are to follow us. Let us trust them as probably more competent, more Austraiian in spirit, and less hampered by provincial considerations or daydreams of redemption by mere law-making methods. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Our children should not be harnessed and shackled in any way. The quotation continues - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Let us face the situation manfully to-day, leaving our country better provided than we found it with the means of progress, and without loss of liberty, still free to meet fresh difficulties and fresh trials as they arise, strong in the faith that our race has so long justified. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Government should adhere to that splendid ideal and recast this objectionable measure. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>694</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What was <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deakin</inline> speaking of? Was it the Braddon clause? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>694</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The statement was made in 1910, when conditions generally were  panicky,  and when an attempt was made to shackle the Australian people. The Assistant Minister knows to what he was referring. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>694</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He certainly was not referring to Communist propaganda. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>694</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I know all about Communist propaganda. I travelled through the sugar districts of Queensland fighting it, and if I were not in the Senate to-day I would be continuing the tight against this rotten propaganda. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>694</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Then why object to this bill? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>694</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- On a recent occasion on the Queensland  cane-fields  the opponents of communism won their battle without repressive legislation  of  this character, but with the assistance of the most powerful union in Australia, and a decision of the Arbitration Court. In 1932 some Melbourne University students who expressed communistic doctrines were roughly handled by their fellow-students, and the incident was reported in the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> of the 3rd May of that year. The report stated - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Last night&#39;s disturbance at the meeting of the Melbourne University Debating Society was discreditable to those responsible. Those who ill-used the students holding communistic opinions were only imitating the hoodlums and  anti-Australian  foreigners who broke up a meeting on Sunday at the Yarra bank. They were not acting as educated men, but as disturbers displaying mob intelligence. An institution that stands for the free play of the intellect does not need defence by personal violence. As members of the professional staff indicate, it can afford to listen to error in the knowledge that there is perfect safety in enlightenment and truth. <inline font-style="italic">&#91;Extension of time granted.&#93;</inline></para>
          </quote>
          <para>I hope that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brennan</inline> agrees with Edward Burke - that great historic figure who was not a bad champion of liberty in the days when there was not too much of it - who said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Liberty is a good to be enlarged, not an evil to bc diminished. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency to restrict human liberty more and more. In my opinion, the less liberty is restricted, the better for the community as a whole. </para>
          <para>I passed through the war period, but not as a soldier, because I was definitely against conscription. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>695</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SAMPSON, Burford</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sampson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator let &#34; George &#34; do it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>695</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I believe that Australia has a contribution to make to the age-old struggle between liberty and suppression. Honorable senators opposite, like dumb, driven cattle, will support the Government when the division bells ring, without knowing the issues at stake. I do not want &#34; George &#34; to do my job; I have never wanted any one to do my job for me. When I have come up against authority, I have always got the worst of it ; but unlike some honorable senators, I have not hauled down my colours. I still stand for Australia, the land of hope and glory. In no other country is liberty so little threatened, except by measures of this kind. Ten years ago a fight for free speech was waging in the Commonwealth. The Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> is to be commended for the stand it took then. I do not suppose that the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Menzies)</inline> would agree with the views expressed in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> in 1925 ; because he, and others like him, stand for the suppression of the liberty of the people under such legislation as the Crimes Act. On the 6th July, 1925, the following paragraph appeared in an editorial in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald: -</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>It was for the protection of these rights that the <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> was compelled to fight this case, for that <inline font-style="italic">freedom</inline> of criticism in matters of public interest, both political and social, artistic, and in every other way which, as the Chief Justice emphasized, is the basis of most of the political and social institutions in our country. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I draw attention to the word &#34; artistic,&#34; and .remind honorable senators of the censorship that exists in regard to the books that the public of Australia may read. Books which circulate freely in other countries have been removed from the shelves of the Parliamentary Library. A previous Minister for Trade and Customs suppressed <inline font-style="italic">Redheap,</inline> and recently the present Minister waged a wonderful fight in support of what he claimed to be the right of the Government to tell people what they may read. T do not admit that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. &#91;White,</inline> or any other Minister for Trade and Customs, is my intellectual superior. But when he says : &#34; Collings, you may read this book, &#39;but not that one,&#34; I challenge his authority. The article in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald</inline> went on to say - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The outcome of this case means that so long as a man or a newspaper expresses what he honestly believes to be the truth, he need not fear the consequences. Neither courts nor juries shall take away, either from the press or from citizens, that great fundamental right of our liberty - the right of free speech and free criticism in matters of public interest. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>This bill seeks to take away that right. When it has been placed on the statutebook we shall be shackled intellectually, economically, socially and artistically, to such an extent as to be unworthy of the great race from which we sprang and the great destiny of Australia.- This great democracy in the southern hemisphere has not been .built up along these lines. The foundations of Australia&#39;s liberty were laid by men who were transported from .the Old Country for picking up a rabbit which a gamekeeper had shot and thrown over the fence, and boys who were banished for stealing a few buttons or other articles valued at a few pence. They refused to recognize the lord&#39;s right to the fish and the water and the furry animals in the woods. Time passed, and then came the Eureka Stockade. Those men at Ballarat who resisted injustice set an example to the world, and  even  to-day good Australians make pilgrimages to the spot, and raise their hats in reverence and thankfulness that men were willing to fight and die in order that others might enjoy a greater measure of liberty. I wish to see Australians not with less liberty, but with more. If the Government would rid its mind of the fear complex and realize that all wisdom will not die with us, it would remodel this bill to make it less vicious and less drastic. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator HARDY</inline>(New South Wales) &#91;12.3S~|. - 1 shall not speak at length at this stage, because the bill is essentially one for discussion in committee. Listening attentively to the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Collings)</inline> I could not but conclude that he had mistaken the title of the bill. It is &#34;A bill, for an Act. to amend the Crimes Act, 1914-1932 &#34;. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Collings</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In order to make it worse. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>696</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The bill before the Senate has two broad divisions. First, it seeks to amend existing legislation relating to official secrets by empowering the Government to control information which, if given to a foreign power, might prove injurious to Australia. There has been no amendment of the legislation dealing with official secrets since 1914~. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Nothing terrible has happened in the meantime. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I recollect, even if the honorable senator does not, that a world war took place between 1914 and 1918. We have heard a good deal about freedom of speech. Indeed, it is a habit of the Opposition to accuse other people of attempting to interfere with the liberties of the people. .Whenever possible, it quotes Soviet Russia as an example of a well-governed country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COLLINGS</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- &#34; George &#34; is scabbing on Soviet Russia to-day. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Opposition senators should read the penal code in force in Soviet Russia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Duncan-Hughes</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Will the honorable senator give a definition of freedom of speech ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>696</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I shall not attempt that task. The Leader of the Opposition attempted to do so, but without success. As the Leader of the Opposition has said that this bill has been delibe rately designed to interfere with the freedom of the people I propose to compare it with the penal code in operation in Russia. Under the heading &#34; Crimes Against the State &#34; the following appears in the penal code of Russia - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>696</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY CRIMES</title>
          <page.no>696</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>-Any action is considered counterrevolutionary which is directed towards the overthrow, undermining; or weakening of the authority of the Workers and Peasants Soviets, or of the Workers and Peasants Government (whether of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, or of a soviet or autonomous republic) elected by them in accordance with the Constitution of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics . . . </para>
        <para class="block">The Government of Russia may classify any action as being of a counterrevolutionary nature. Under the Australian law, an association may be declared to be unlawful. Such a declaration implies that the association is revolutionary, and it is therefore fair to compare the penalties for revolutionary tactics imposed by Australia with those in force in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for counterrevolutionary actions. The penalty for an action which the Government of Russia regards as counter-revolutionary, may be &#34; the supreme measure of social defence - death by shooting, with confiscation of property&#34;. For other offences an accused person may be banished and have his property confiscated. That is the penal code which the Australian Labour party holds up before Australians as a model. </para>
        <para class="italic">
          <inline font-style="italic">Silling suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.</inline>
        </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>696</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am endeavouring to show by comparison with the penal codes of other countries, that there is nothing in this bill for any democratic Australian to fear. I have already pointed out that in the penal code of the Soviet any action - and the legal gentlemen in the Senate will inform us that the word &#34; any &#34; is capable of very wide interpretation - likely to undermine the established economic order, meets with the supreme measure of social defence, namely, death by shooting, or, if the court decides to extend a certain amount of leniency, banishment and confiscation of property. It is interesting to learn how harsh the penal code of the Union of </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Soviet Social Republics really is, because only in that way can we be brought to a realization of the moderate nature of the bill now before the Senate. Article 193 (10) of the Penal Code of the Soviets - and this might be of interest to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brown</inline> who often refers to the Soviets in this House - reads as follows :  - (b)Failureto appear punctually, without adequate cause, on the part of any person performing or liable to military service . . . entails the maximum penalty of death by shooting or banishment and confiscation of property. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>697</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brown</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is in Russia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>697</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am pointing out how fortunate the honorable senator is to be in Australia. Instead of criticizing the Crimes Act he should congratulate the Government upon upholding the democratic principles for which he alleges the Australian Labour party stands. Again article 193 (13) provides that evasion of the obligation to perform military service on the pretext of religious or other convictions shall he punishable by death or banishment and confiscation of private property. We find that the publication of any information regarding the armed forces of the Soviet which ought to be kept secret, is also punishable by shooting and in a lesser de- gree by banishment and confiscation of property. Yet <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Collings</inline> deplored the introduction of a. democratic measure such as the bill before the Senate. The honorable senator is adopting a. most unreasonable attitude. When the provisions of the Crimes Act are compared with the precautions which other nations have been forced to take, it will be seen that they are moderate indeed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>697</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brown</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Therefore let us make them worse. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>697</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator HARDY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator appears to imagine that I am attacking him because of his advocacy of sovietism. Let us examine the precautions taken by Germany to protect its official secrets and to guard itself against white-anting by organizations classified as unlawful associations. The Hitler decree of the 26th May. 1933, was deliberately directed against Communist property in. Germany, and reads - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>In order permanently to deprive Communist endeavours of a traitorous nature of useful property, the national cabinet has enacted the following law,which is herewith promulgated: - </para>
            <list type="decimal">
              <item label="(">
                <para>1 ) The highest State officials or the authorities designated by them may confiscate for the benefit of the State, property and rights of the Communist party ofGermany and its auxiliary and subsidiary organizations, as well as property &#34; which is used or intended to be used . for furthering Communist activities. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">We are endeavouring by this carefullydrafted and moderate legislation . to provide reasonable powers for dealing with organizations definitely out to white-ant our social structure; but the Australian Labour party, headed by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Collings),</inline> condemns it as being unjust and entirely repugnant to the democratic principles of this country. If the honorable senator finds white-ants in his home he immediately procures a pot of cyanide to eradicate them. All we ask in this bill is the right to preserve our political and economic structure, of which we, as senators, are guardians. It might be said that the Hitler decree is an attack upon the Communist party; but a further decree, dated the 14th July, 1933, provides for the confiscation of property of other public enemies. It reads - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The provisions of the law of the 26th May, 1933. concerning the confiscation of Communist property, are to he applied to the property and rights of the German Social Democratic party and its auxiliary and collateral organizations, as well as to property and rights which are used or are intended to further Marxist or other movements which, according to determination by the Minister of the Interior, are hostile to the people and the State. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Is there anything more embracing than that decree, which, after all, only gives to the Government power to wipe out these white-anting organizations. If we look at this matter reasonably, and without prejudice, and ask ourselves whether this amendment of the Crimes Act is sound, or whether it is foreign to the Australian conceptions of justice, the answer must be that the provisions of the bill are fundamentally and entirely just. The Italian code is equally as severe as the </para>
          <para class="block">Hitler decree. I could cite, also, the American, and British codes to show that the proposals now before the Senate are in no sense extreme. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Collings</inline> says that he can see no good in the bill, but has he really studied it? Clause 6, relating to incitement to mutiny, merely gives the court power to impose a fine. Previously it had not that power, and could punish only by sentencing the convicted person to aterm of imprisonment. Clause 8 is a beneficial clause, which protects the individual from prosecution without the consent in writing of the Attorney-General. These are actual improvements to the Crimes Act, dictated by experience. Opposition to the bill is not justified in view of the experience and laws of other nations. It is not right to deny to the Government the right to uphold the political and economic system, under which we live against the machinations of unlawful associations, whose intentionis to destroy it. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>698</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6P</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I realize that the bill before us is merely one to amend and add to the original Crimes Act, which I understand is being brought into line with the Official Secrets Act passed in the United Kingdom in 1920. Why this action has been so long delayed I do not know. Honorable senators on this side are not opposed to certain provisions in the bill; we recognize the right of a government, whether it be a democratic government or a dictatorship, to safeguard its own interests and its people. But some clauses in the bill are most reactionary. This legislation encroaches upon the freedom which is the inherited right of every Australian. It gives greater powers to the police, an organization which has a definite interest in launching prosecutions and bringing them to asuccessful issue. If undue authority is given to the police, we shall increase the danger to democracy and imperil the freedom of individual citizens. The bill also limits freedom of expression, and on that account it is reactionary. I am a believer in liberty of speech. I speak feelingly on this matter, because in the course of my life I have been punished in various countries, and put in jail for vigorously asserting my right to freedom of speech. Every Australian should hold  very dear this principle of being permitted to express his thoughts with perfect freedom, so long as those thoughts do not run counter to the social interests of the community. I make that condition because it is possible for a small section to convert freedom into licence. Instead of conserving : the freedom of the people this reactionary measure has a tendency to destroy this cherished possession. J contend that all actions with the object of limiting freedom of expression tend to destroy democracy. Australia has a democratic system of government which gives persons the right to vote for whom they desire and to put into office what party they desire. If honorable senators wish to preserve that democracy at a time when in other parts of the world democracies are falling and dictatorships are being raised, they must not take any steps leading towards government by dictators. All measures which tend to lessen the right of free expression bring nearer the day when dictatorships will be established. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>698</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K09</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAYNE, Herbert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Payne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  What is the difference between free expression and free action? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>698</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Admittedly there must be certain limitations of action. But the Labour party contends that acts of Parliament now on the statute-book are sufficient to meet the situation. Consequently there is no need for the Government to limit, further the right of persons to express their convictions. Legislation enacted by the States, and the existing Commonwealth Crimes Act, give governments a sufficient power to control those bodies at which this amending bill is directed. But there is another danger. In setting out to suppress one section of the community the Government is resorting to measures which may penalize undeservedly other sections. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hardy</inline> in sententiously dilating upon the conditions in Russia, Italy and Germany, informed honorable senators that men who held views contrary to those of the powers that be in those countries were placed against a wall and shot. He cited the criminal codes of several countries and pointed out how fortunate we are not to bp living in them. I endorse his remarks whole-heartedly, and I think, we should be grateful that we are living in a free country like Australia. Because the Labour party recognizes our good fortune it is anxious to preserve the freedom we  now enjoy.  It does not follow that because a reactionary Russian regime took certain action to consolidate its position, we in Australia should follow that example! Because Italy, Russia or Germany adopts brutal methods, it is ridiculous to assert that Australia is given <inline font-style="italic">carte blanche</inline> further to limit the right of free expression. To my mind that is one of the most paltry arguments that could be adduced. In Russia, Germany and Italy revolutionary action led to the overthrow of democratic rule. Mussolini himself stated that he walked over the corpse of liberty, and Hitler said that democracy brought Germany to the verge of ruin. The  bolshevists  took charge of Russia at a time when a struggle for life and death was in progress, and there was no opportunity to hold an election, or set up democratic rule. Whether it be fascist or communist, a government which meets a revolutionary situation must take revolutionary action. If a civil war occurred in Australia various forces would align themselves one against each other; if the fascists were successful they would shoot the communists, and if the communists were successful they would find a way of getting rid of the fascists. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The  Russion  revolution occurred nearly twenty years ago. The penal code from which I quoted was drawn up only three years ago. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am endeavouring to show the falsity, stupidity and puerility of the arguments of the honorable  senator  He has a poor case indeed, if he has to introduce the subject of Russia merely because we have on occasions referred to certain conditions in that country, and it does not follow that we agree with everything done in Russia, and that we are desirous of establishing Soviets in Australia. When a person is fighting for the right of others to express themselves freely, and to publish their thoughts it does not necessarily mean that he endorses their views. I have perused a book <inline font-style="italic">Freedom of Speech,</inline> by Zechariah Chafee, Professor of Law at Harvard University, and it deals with the case of John Wilkes, a notorious character in America. He shows that this man&#39;s character was such as could not be defended, nor could his views be endorsed by the majority of Americans. Wilkes incurred the antagonism of the Government of the United States of America, but </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Chafee points out that because his views were at variance with the general consensus of opinion, it was not right that he should have been denied freedom of expression. Because I advocate that a man be given the right to voice his ideas, it does not imply that I endorse those ideas. 1, for one, do not endorse everything that the Soviets have done. I have sought a good deal of information about the fascist government of Italy, but it does not follow that I believe in Mussolini&#39;s theories and in fascism generally. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTR</name.id>
                <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>NAT</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
                <name role="display">Senator A J McLACHLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Where does this bill interfere with free expression ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Clause 6 refers to &#34; publishing &#34; incitements &#34; likely to &#34; lead to the seduction of a member of the King&#39;s forces from his duty or allegiance. The Postmaster-General knows what is meant by publishing. Does not that clause prevent freedom of expression? If I am not allowed to publish certain matters, then my freedom of expression is curtailed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTR</name.id>
                <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>NAT</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
                <name role="display">Senator A J McLACHLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Does the honorable senator consider that any person should be allowed to publish anything calculated to seduce a person serving in the King&#39;s forces? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I maintain that the Government has the power now to deal with individuals who break the law, but. in this measure the Government is seeking much wider authority. Part of the clause reads - 1 a. Any person who publishes any book, periodical, pamphlet, handbill, poster or newspaper containing any matter of such a nature as to. or as to be likely to - (ft) seduce any person serving in the King&#39;s forces from his duty and allegiance. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">The word &#34; knowingly &#34; has been left out, and the words &#34;likely to&#34; have been added. The Labour party does not stand foi1 mutiny or for permitting the seduction and the words &#34;likely to&#34; have been, of any man from the duty he owes to his country, but the proposed amendments in this bill will give to judges, who, I make bold to say, may be biased, power to do a grievous wrong to a person for expressing his sincere beliefs. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>699</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am not a lawyer, but I have sufficient common sense to be careful when answering a leading question of that nature. I say, emphatically, that the Labour movement will never approve of action by any individual having for its objective the seducing of any citizen from allegiance to his country. This statement, I hope, is definite enough. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I have just had placed in my hands a copy of the Melbourne <inline font-style="italic">Herald,</inline> of the 6th July, 1925, containing some comments of the Chief Justice with reference to a case that was then attracting considerable attention. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SAMPSON, Burford</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sampson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That was in relation to trouble on the waterfront. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It may have been. At the moment I am unable to say. This is what the Chief Justice said on that occasion - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>In matters of public interest not only the press, but every citizen lias a right to say what he thinks, no matter how injurious it may be to the other man who is affected by it. He has a perfect right to do this, and in many cases, if he is a man of courage, he ought to deal with it as a duty in addition to a right. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JNT</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">ABBOTT, Macartney</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Abbott</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That related to a civil libel case. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am not sure, but the comments of the Chief Justice have an important bearing on the principle of free expression in the community. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We wish to discuss the issues involved in this bill without heat, and are endeavouring to establish a case for liberalization of the bill, but I do not anticipate that we shall succeed because Government supporters are prejudiced in their outlook. Professor Chafee says - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The American Sedition Act 1798, which President Wilson declares to have &#34;cut perilously near the root of freedom of speech and of the press &#34;, entrusted criminality to the jury, and admitted truth as a defence. On the other hand, freedom of speech might exist without these two technical safeguards. The essential question is not, who is judge of the criminality of an utterance, but what is the test of its criminality. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I intend to deal with that later, when discussing the action of the Government in preventing the publication, <inline font-style="italic">Soviets of To-day</inline> from being sent through the post. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>700</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Does the bill contain any provisions dealing with freedom of speech? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Assistant Minister has told us that there is no distinction in law between freedom of speech and publishing, which is a broad term. Our contention is that freedom of expression is affected by clause 6, which amends section 5 of the principal act by providing that - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Any person who publishes any book, periodical, pamphlet, hand-bill, poster or newspaper containing any matter of such a nature as to, or as to be likely to . . . &#34; incite &#34; a member of the defence forces to commit an act of mutiny &#39; shall be guilty of an indictable offence. Mark the words &#34; likely to &#34;. &#39; </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTR</name.id>
                <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>NAT</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
                <name role="display">Senator A J McLACHLAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Should such an offence be allowed? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Twice I have said that we on this side do not stand for any act that may incite members of the defence forces to mutiny. But there is a difference between the existing law and the law as it will be following the passage of this measure. The amendments proposed will enable any judge or jury, however biased, to declare that the act of an individual is &#34;likely&#34; to incite to mutiny. Professor Chafee goes on to say - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The common law and the Sedition Act of 1798 made the test blame of the Government and its officials, because to bring them into disrepute tended to overthrow the State. The real issue in every free-speech controversy is this - whether the State can punish all words which have some tendency, however remote, to bring about acts in violation of law, or only words which directly incite to acts in  violation  of law. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K09</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PAYNE, Herbert</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Payne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- When was that book written ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Only a- few months ago. I am attacking the provision in the proposed new sub-section because its enactment may lead to gross injustice and endanger the right of free expression of opinion in this country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator must make up his mind whether an act that will incite to mutiny is wrong. If it is, then he must ask himself what should be done about it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I say definitely that if any person mingles with the members of our military, naval or air forces for the purpose of mci ting them to mutiny he is committing an offence and should be adequately punished. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is all that this bill does. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>700</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not agree with the Assistant Minister. The memorandum which has been circulated among honorable senators shows clearly the alterations that are being made in the act. Proposed new sub-section 1 (a) reads - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Any person who publishes any book, periodical, pamphlet, handbill, poster or newspaper  containing  any matter of such a nature as to, or as to be likely to - <inline font-style="italic">{a)</inline> seduce liny person serving in the King&#39;s forces from his duty or allegiance shall be guilty of an offence and be punishable. Honorable senators will note a marked distinction between the proposal in the bill and the existing law. Who is to judge whether statements contained in any publication are &#34; likely &#34; to seduce any person from his allegiance? Professor Chafee states further - </para>
            <para>If  words do not become criminal until they have &#34;an immediate tendency to produce a breach of the peace &#34;, there is no need for a law of sedition, since the ordinary standards of criminal solicitation and attempt apply. Under those standards the words must bring the speaker&#39;s unlawful intention reasonably near to success. Such a limited power to punish utterances rarely satisfies the zealous in times of excitement like a war. They realize that all condemnation of the war or of conscription may conceivably lead to active resistance or insubordination. Is it not better to kill the serpent in the egg? </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is what this Government says - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>AH writings that have even a remote tendency to hinder the war must be suppressed. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">According to the Assistant Minister and Government supporters, all written statements contained in publications that may have even a remote tendency to affect the Government are to be suppressed - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Such has always been the argument of the opponents of free speech. And the most powerful weapon in their hands, since the abolition of the censorship, is this doctrine of indirect causation- </para>
          </quote>
          <para>This is the doctrine that will be applied under the law as altered by the bill - under which words can be punished for a supposed bad tendency long before there is any probability that they will break out into unlawful acts. Closely related to it is the doctrine of constructive intent  which  regards the intent of the defendant to cause violence as immaterial so long as he intended to write the words, or else presumes the violent intent from the bad tendency of the words on the ground that a man is presumed to intend the consequences of his acts. </para>
          <para class="block">There is a possibility that this new law will be invoked in such a way as to enable a judge or jury to declare that a particular statement in a publication is &#34; likely &#34; to incite to mutiny, thus rendering the writer or publisher liable to be punished. Does the Assistant Minister suggest that it is right to place such power in the hands of a judge or jury? </para>
          <para>Some time ago I addressed to the PostmasterGeneral a question with regard to the refusal by the Postal Department to transmit through the post copies of a Sydney publication, <inline font-style="italic">The Soviets of Today.</inline> I received a copy of this newspaper through the post, and found nothing objectionable in it. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>701</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">SAMPSON, Burford</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sampson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- My copies came through the post also. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>701</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Several issues were transmitted by post, but subsequently their transmission by post was refused. In the copy which I received there were articles describing Soviet industries, as well as a number of photographs, which I found of interest. The Postmaster-General, in reply to my question, stated that the articles were of such a nature as to justify the action of the Government in preventing their transmission by post. Yesterday <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Collings</inline> handed to me his copy of the issue containing the article to which exception had been taken by the Government. To me it did not appear to be very objectionable. It referred to the difference between the discipline in the Russian and Australian navies, and stated that the Russian naval officers fraternize with the men whereas the Australian officers do not. It also mentioned a little trouble that occurred on one of the Australian vessels following the striking of an officer by one of the naval ratings. Subsequent to the publication of that article, the transmission through the post of <inline font-style="italic">The Soviets of To-day</inline> was forbidden. If trouble is to be avoided, the members of our naval, military, and air forces should be able to ventilate their grievances, and by that means give the authorities an opportunity to remedy them. If the Government prevents the publication of information; the trouble may become intensified. The Government is providing in this bill that it shall have the right to&#34; prosecute the publisher of a book, periodical, or pamphlet who may not be conversant with the actual contents of the article published. On a previous occasion, the Leader of - the Senate said that an article which appeared in <inline font-style="italic">The Soviets of To-day</inline> might have incited the members of the Australian naval forces to commit an act of mutiny, and, therefore, the transmission of that paper through the post had been prohibited. Tory newspapers containing articles on Russia and other countries, far worse than that of which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Pearce</inline> complained, are transmitted by post daily. Under the proposed amendments, a publisher of a magazine may -be brought before a judge and charged, with inciting men to mutiny. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is the honorable senator aware that the article to which he refers suggests that the men in the Australian Navy should do what the Russian naval forces did during the Russian Revolution ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am not advocating mutiny in the Australian Navy. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In effect, that is what that article does. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Minister and honorable senators opposite contend that the possibility of mutiny in our defence forces may arise, and that those who published an article inciting or likely to incite men to commit an act of mutiny should be imprisoned. The suppression of facts cannot prevent mutiny or redress grievances. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The object of the Communists is to create grievances. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not hold a brief for the Communists ; but, as a member of the Australian Labour party, I contend that in a democracy every person should have the right to express his opinions freely. Surely comparisons can be made between the Australian Navy and the navies of Italy, Germany, and Russia ! If trouble can be avoided by a little publicity, why should publishers be gagged ? The Government contends that tlie only way in which to prevent disaffection in our defence forces is to bring persons responsible for publishing criticism or grievances before a judge and jury and place them in gaol. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K0F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Sir George Pearce</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There is . a constitutional way to adjust grievances. It, is only when revolutionary methods are adopted that this law will apply. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We do not advocate revolution. In a democracy such as this, with its parliamentary and other institutions, there should be every opportunity for freedom of expression, upon which the existence of such institutions depends. At present the law is sufficiently comprehensive, but because the Government could not prove that a certain publisher in a previous prosecution &#34; knowingly &#34; published an article it proposes to amend it. Some poor unfortunate publisher who unknowingly publishes an article which may be likely to incite persons to mutiny may be imprisoned. If a person publishes matter which is directly responsible for a mutiny in the naval, military or air forces, he should be punished. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What punishment  does the honorable senator suggest? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The law provides that a person guilty of such an offence may be fined &#163;1,000 or imprisoned for life; but under the amending provision, which will make it easier to secure a prosecution, the fine has been reduced to &#163;500 or imprisonment for two years. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COLLINGS, Joseph</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Collings</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- A man may be placed in gaol without any charge being laid against him. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes; power is given to arrest a man, who may not be charged until the authorities can get in touch with the Attorney-General, who may be on the other side of the world. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The section provides the contrary. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>702</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I shall deal with that and other matters in committee. Professor Chafee also states - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The same desire to nip revolution in the bud was shown by the Scotch judges, who secured the conviction of Muir and Palmer for advocating reform of the <inline font-style="italic">rotten</inline> boroughs which chose the House of Commons, and the extension of the franchise, sentences of  transportation :  for seven and fourteen years being imposed. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>703</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How many years ago  was that? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>703</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Many years, but the same principle is in operation to-day. There is too much suppression. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>703</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KNZ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HARDY, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Hardy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Can the honorable senator favour the Soviet penal code and oppose suppression ? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>703</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- All our economic and social problems can be solved without suppression. We have no desire to impose upon the Australian people a form of government similar to that in Russia. We should not he influenced by the methods adopted in Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Russia, or any other country. A democracy should safeguard the right of free expression. The Government of the Commonwealth is not the only government which forgets that democracy is based on freedom. Professor Chafee says - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>In the light of such prosecutions it is plain that the most vital indication that the popular definition of liberty of the press, unpunishable criticism of officials and laws, has become a reality, is the disappearance of these doctrines of bad tendency and presumptive intent. In Great Britain they lingered until liberalism triumphed in 1832, but in this country they disappeared with the adoption of the free speech clauses. The revival of those doctrines is a sure symptom of an attack upon the liberty of the&#39; press. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Unfortunately for the party on this side of the chamber,  the  liberty of the press is restricted to one section of the press. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Duncan-Hughes</inline> asked the meaning of freedom of speech. Professor Chafee gives the following definition - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The true meaning of freedom of speech seems to bc this. One of the most important purposes of society and government is the discovery and spread of truth on subjects of general concern. This is possible only through absolutely unlimited discussion, for, as Bagehot points out, once force is thrown into the argument, it becomes a matter of chance whether it is thrown on the false side or the true, and truth loses all its natural advantage in the contest. Nevertheless, there are other purposes of government, such as order, the training of the young, protection against external aggression. Unlimited discussion sometimes interferes with these purposes, which must then be  balanced  against freedom of speech, but freedom of speech ought to weigh very heavily in the scale. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>This legislation does not indicate that the Government is weighing freedom of speech heavily in the scale.  </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>703</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JY7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUNCAN-HUGHES, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Duncan-Hughes</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- On the argument of the writer quoted, would not freedom of speech be just as likely to promote falsehood as truth? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>703</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I admit that there are limits ; but, within those limits, freedom of expression is necessary in order to safeguard the institutions of a free people. Further on in his book Professor Chafee says - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The principle on which speech is classified as lawful or unlawful involves the balancing against each other of two very important social interests, in public safety and in the search for truth. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Supporters of the Government will probably contend that, in the interests of public safety, a publisher of statements to which exception is taken should he gaoled, whether or not he is aware of everything that is published in a newspaper bearing his name. The quotation continues - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Every reasonable attempt should be made to maintain both interests unimpaired, and the great interest in free speech should be sacrificed only when the interest in public safety is really imperilled, and not, as most men believe, when it is barely conceivable that it may be slightly affected. In war time, therefore, speech should be unrestricted by the censorship or by punishment, unless it is clearly liable to cause direct and dangerous interference with the conduct of the war. Thus our problem of locating the boundary line of free speech is solved. It is fixed close to the point where words will give rise to unlawful acts. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The writer was dealing with free expressions in war time. Would <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brennan</inline> say that in times of peace that article would be liable to cause dangerous interference with the government of this country? The legislative proposals of the Government as set out in this bill, are contrary to the principles of orderly government for which this party stands, and therefore I hope that the measure will be modified and made less drastic. Clause 13 seeks to amend section 82 of the principal act  by adding the following sub-section - </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Where it appears to a Superintendent of Police that the case is one of great emergency, and that in the interests of the Commonwealth, immediate action is necessary, lie may, by written order under his hand, give to any constable the same authority as may be given by the warrant of a Justice of the Peace under this section. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">Have circumstances arisen since the original legislation was passed to justify giving such power to any member of the police force ? Unfortunately, in some police forces promotion is dependent on the number of convictions for which an officer is responsible. I see danger in vesting too much power in any police officer. There should be some good reason for altering the law to give greater powers to the police. In ordinary circumstances a Justice of the Peace would have to be notified, and information laid against the accused person, and witnesses would be subject to cross-examination ; but under this bill extensive powers are to be given to the police without any of those safeguards. </para>
          <para>Clause 5 deals with indeterminate sentences. The Minister who moved the second reading told us that this provision had been inserted at the request of certain judges. It is not right that after a man  has been convicted and has served his sentence he should be committed to a reformatory, for a further term. I have always understood that a man who has served his sentence is deemed to have expiated . his offence, and thereafter is regarded as a free man. Under this bill that will not be so. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>704</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KR9</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">LECKIE, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Leckie</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Before he is given an indeterminate sentence, he must have been convicted at least three times. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>704</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6P</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is not so. The proposed new sub-section 1a reads - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding sub-section, where a person apparently of the age of seventeen years or upwards is convicted of an indictable offence against any law of the Commonwealth (whether he has been previously convicted of any offence or not) the court before which he is convicted may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the antecedents, character, associates, age, health or mental condition of the person convicted, the nature of the offence or any special circumstances of the case - </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(a)">
                <para>direct, as part of his sentence, that, on the expiration of the term of imprisonment then imposed on him, he be detained during the GovernorGeneral&#39;s pleasure in a reformatory prison . . . </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">He may be a first offender, whohas been inveigled into some unlawful association because of his enthusiasm for reform. Every youth who is fired with a zeal for reform hopes to turn the world upside down. Many of us have passed through that stage. In my early days I imagined that the world&#39;s economic troubles could easily be removed if only the people heard the truth. I thought that we had but to say to the people- </para>
          <para>Rise like lions from your slumbers, </para>
          <para>Rise in unvanquishable numbers, </para>
          <para>Shake your chains to earth like dew </para>
          <para>Which in sleep has fallen on yon; </para>
          <para>Ye are many, they are few. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>704</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honorable senator has exhausted his time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>704</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KS7</name.id>
              <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>UAP; LP from 1944</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MACDONALD, Allan</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ALLAN MACDONALD</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Despite the eloquence of the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Collings),</inline> I intend to support the bill. It does not contain anything which should frighten any decent citizen, nor is there anything in it to interfere with the proper exercise of liberty of speech or of the right of a publisher to publish reasonable comment. On the other hand, it does seek to restrict those who, in a spirit of licence rather than of liberty, seek not only to suborn the members of our military forces but also to  undermine the thought of the community. There is no man more despicable or dastardly in any community than the seditionist or the suborner. I welcome this amendment of the Crimes Act as a step towards eradicating the cancerous growth of Communism which, unfortunately, is spreading in Australia. Generally I support the bill, which will at least eliminate a number of very undesirable people. There are, however, two clauses in this bill which, I suggest to the Assistant Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Brennan),</inline> might be slightly altered.&#39; It is proposed by clause 6 to amend the original act so as to provide for a monetary penalty suitable for application to a corporate body. Obviously, it is impossible to imprison a. corporate body, and yet imprisonment is the only penalty prescribed in the act. But I should like to see the amendment drafted to provide that a corporate body guilty of an offence against the act shall be punished by the imposition of a fine, and that an individual offender shall be imprisoned without the option of a fine. Many enthusiasts are always willing to pass the hat round and raise a substantial sum for the payment of such fines, and there are a number of misguided people in the Commonwealth who always imagine that they should be on the side of the so-called &#34; under-dog.&#34; The result is that the delinquent, who often has not got 2s. to rattle on a tombstone, actually gets off scot-free. T draw the attention of the Assistant -Minister to that clause, and suggest that the penalty be altered to imprisonment, in the case of an individual, without the option of a fine. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Clause S provides that prosecutions shall not be commenced without the written authority of the Attorney-General or some other person authorized by him. I should like to see incorporated in the bill an amendment making it mandatory for the Attorney-General to take action in cases of sedition or subornation of the forces either in time of peace or war. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>705</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2Z</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Thomas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Brennan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the AttorneyGeneral is to have no discretion we need not have this provision at all. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>705</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KS7</name.id>
                <electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
                <party>UAP; LP from 1944</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACDONALD, Allan</name>
                <name role="display">Senator ALLAN MACDONALD</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The  time might arise in Australia, at a critical moment, when a weak-kneed Attorney-General will not take action, and the law will become a dead letter. The working of the clause should be altered to provide that it shall he compulsory for the Attorney-General to prosecute a charge of sedition or subornation in time of peace or war. We do not want  seditionists  or  subornists  in Australia. We enjoy a freedom denied to the nationals of many other countries, and there is no reason why these pests should he allowed to flourish here. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Payne)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>705</page.no>
        <type>special adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>705</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K0F</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party>UAP</party>
            <role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
            <name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>&#91;3.38&#93;.- I move- </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>T1 ut. the Senate at its rising adjourn till  Tuesday,  22nd October, at 3 p.m. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">Once again the Senate has disposed of all the business passed by another place, and it is proposed to adjourn until further legislation is available for consideration. I somewhat resent the suggestion which appears in the press from time to time that, because the Senate does not sit so long or so frequently as another place, it does not do .so much work. It must be remembered that no law can be placed upon the statute-hook unless it has rereceived the approval of this chamber. So far as the actual law-making goes, this chamber must do the same amount of work as the House of Representatives, because it has to pass an equal number of bills. </para>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>705</page.no>
        <type>adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Grain Alcohol Industry - ITALOAbyssinian Dispute. </para>
      <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir George</inline> Pearce) proposed - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That the Semite do now adjourn. </para>
      </quote>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>705</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KTR</name.id>
            <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
            <party>NAT</party>
            <role>Postmaster-General</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MCLACHLAN, Alexander</name>
            <name role="display">Senator A J McLACHLAN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I desire to inform honorable senators that, in response to a request made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Foll</inline> yesterday, a copy of the report by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. L.</inline> J. Rogers, Commonwealth fuel adviser, on the grain alcohol industry in Australia, has been placed on the table of the Library. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>705</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K0F</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party>UAP</party>
            <role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
            <name role="display">Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>&#91;3.41&#93;. - Yesterday <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Foll</inline> asked me if I would make available to honorable senators a copy of the statement made by the Italian delegate to the League of Nations giving reasons for the action Italy is taking in Abyssinia, together with the reply of the Abyssinian delegate. The Government  has received only one copy of the report of the League Assembly&#39;s proceedings, and it is proposed to lay that copy on the table of the Library. The Printing Committee can then decide whether the report should be printed in whole or in part. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Semite adjourned at. 3.42 p.m. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>