Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 16 September 1958


Mr CAIRNS (Yarra) .- I am amazed at the criteria accepted by Government supporters for the purpose of determining whether a migrant should be deported. With regard to clause 14 (2.) (b), I think .that the Minister may be technically correct in saying that a similar clause appears in the immigration laws of most countries. In the case of Great Britain, it has been so insignificant and so little used that we are unaware of any cases having been taken to the court. This matter presents no problem whatever in the laws of Great Britain. But with regard to the United States of America the matter is of much greater significance. It is well to realize that in the United States, when the matter has gone to the Supreme Court, the trend of judgment has been that it is not enough simply to advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the established government, or to have an opinion in favour thereof, or to be associated with a body which advocates it; the advocacy must be associated with a present danger of the situation being achieved or coming about. The United States Supreme Court has tailored this kind of clause until it has reached the position where the real offence is the overt act; the commission of an act done in pursuit of this advocacy or of this opinion - and not the advocacy or the opinion itself. But in Australia we have not the advantage of a background of case law or discussion of that sort and consequently we have the danger of a commissioner, a Minister or a supporter of the Government, or some other person, simply applying his own perhaps somewhat hairshirted ideas of what this thing might happen to be, and applying his own particular judgment upon what is involved.

It would be wrong to allow this clause to pass without addressing ourselves to it as we have done in the case of clause 13, which may not be as serious in its impact as clause 14 (2.) (b) and may not demand such care in application, to say the least.







Suggest corrections