Senator COONEY (8:18 PM) —Senator Murray has been talking about history, and that is a fair thing to look at when looking at a bill like this. It is something that the courts take into account when they are looking at issues—as the minister would know, from a statement of Justice Dixon in the case of the Australian Communist Party v. the Commonwealth, where the issue of Defence powers was much considered and where the great man said:

History is a matter to look at, as Senator Murray has said. As you would realise, the expression `or serious damage to property' is an expression that you might find in a summary offences act, so I can understand the problems that arise. I might just talk about the Australian Communist Party v. the Commonwealth case, which was decided in 1951, as Mr Dabb would remember. It gives me the occasion to refer to a person who played a major part in that. I do not refer to Dr Evatt; I refer to Mr Ted Laurie. Mr Laurie was, amongst other things, junior to Fred Paterson, who was badly injured by the police in a march on St Patrick's Day. That happened in 1948—unfortunately, in a way, a time I can remember.

The Communist Party Dissolution Act went through parliament in 1950. It was taken to the High Court, and it was thought that the High Court would uphold it. The tactic was to use the High Court as a forum for protesting about the evils of the act and how it was a dreadful thing to try to disband a political party in Australia—the first time it had been tried. Fortunately, it was not successful. Ted Laurie was telling me that, when the people went in there, they quickly detected that the High Court was taking it very seriously. So, instead of making a statement and using the court as a forum, they argued it, and they argued it successfully. The only person that held against them was Justice Latham. He was a great advocate, as you know—gone to God, as have all the great advocates involved in that case. They were the days—I hope there are still days like this—when people like Ted Laurie proclaimed as lawyers the great values of life, and I think they are still there. He was a most honourable man, and I would like to place that on record now and then get back to the amendments.

I am trying to think what Ted Laurie, Dr Evatt, Fred Paterson, or Maurie Ashkanasy, who was in that case, would say. I think they would say that they were somewhat concerned about the breadth of the statement or `serious damage to property'. It is almost inconsistent with the first part of the amendment. If the amendment is carried without the added amendment, it would read:

and nobody wants to see death—

and people can understand that. But adding `or serious damage to property' seems to, as it were, reduce the weight of the earlier part of the proposed amendment. These are matters to be concerned about, as other speakers have said.