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
Wednesday, 31 August 1960

Mr WARD (East Sydney) .- 1 had not intended to make any reference to this matter, but I have been induced to do so by the extraordinary statement which has just been made by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). I remind the Minister that this is a question of entry to a trust territory and that the Australian Government is answerable to the United Nations Trusteeship Council for its conduct of affairs in the Territory. 1 should imagine that the council will want to know something of the activities of this Government in keeping out of the Territory people who have legitimate business in it. This professor was invited to Australia as a guest of the Australian National University. Strangely enough, the Minister was not satisfied with trying to smear other people; he smeared a member of his own party - the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) who is about to depart for the United Nations as one of the Australian Government's representatives. No doubt, he will be asked questions by the Trusteeship Council relating to what this Governmen is doing. What has happened in this instance indicates that the Opposition was correct when it opposed the development of the security service in Australia as a political police force.

Let us look at the matter sensibly. Every one knows that there are numbers of known Communists in Australia who move freely around the community. They are permitted to do so and, as long as they do not infringe any of the laws of the land, no action is taken against them. Although questions may be asked in this House, no action is actually taken to prevent them from going wherever they want to go.

What damage could be done by allowing Professor Gluckman to enter the Territory? I do not know Professor Gluckman. 1 had never heard his name until this debate commenced. I do not know whether he is a Communist, or whether his wife or any member of his family has ever been a member of the Communist Party I would say that even if Professor Gluckman were a Communist, unless there were some further, or more substantial reason, why he should not be permitted into the Territory, 1 would not regard that as sufficient reason for the Government preventing his movement into that particular area. Let us be sensible about it. When, we were talking about the security service in this Parliament, we were told that the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick), who is a responsible Minister, was responsible for the security service, yet we are not given even a glimmer of the reason why this man was excluded.

As members of this Parliament know, 1 was a former Minister for External Territories and 1 had the job of administering the Territories during a much more difficult and dangerous period than the present. During the war period the military authorities were in control, and they regulated the movement of people in and out of the Territory. When the civil administration returned, we were inundated with applications from lots of people who wanted to go to the Territory. Many of these applications were refused temporarily because of difficulties which existed, but on no occasion when the Labour Government refused permission for anybody to go into the Territory were we not prepared to state plainly in this Parliament, if we were questioned, the reason why that person had been excluded. In this Parliament, that is said to be a democratic Parliament, why cannot we be told why Professor Gluckman is not permitted to go into the Territory? It is not sufficient to say merely that the Government is satisfied that he should not be allowed to enter it. In a democracy not only has the Government to be satisfied that the personal liberties of an individual are not being impinged; the Opposition has certain rights in respect to this matter. The Opposition has a duty to see that the individual and personal liberties of people are not interfered with, as they have been on this occasion by the action of this Government.

The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) has accused my colleagues of smearing some of the people they mentioned as having been previously excluded from the Territory, but what he done? He has not said straight out that Professor Gluckman has been engaged in subversive activities, that he is a troublemaker, but he mentioned those things as reasons why people are excluded from the Territory. He then said that he is not going to tell us anything more as to why Professor Gluckman has been kept out.

Is it not quite obvious that the Government has had a report from the security service about this man, .and that it is not prepared even to indicate the nature of that report to this Parliament? Who gave the Government the information? As a matter of fact, it has never yet been proved to the satisfaction of anybody that the director of the security service, its deputy director, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) are truthful people. We all recollect the occasion during the Petrov royal commission when the sworn evidence of the Director and the Deputy Director of Security was denied by the Prime Minister; their evidence was in conflict with a statement that he had made in this Parliament. That has never been cleared up satisfactorily. All three could not have told the truth. Either the Director and the Deputy Director of Security told the truth and the Prime Minister lied, or the reverse was the case.

My colleagues have asked what pimp gave this information to the security service. I want to make it quite clear, if honorable members want reminding of it, that the people employed by the security service are not all recognized as members of that service. The service has agents. Everybody knows that it has been disclosed on occasions that it has all sorts of disreputable people acting as agents for it smearing people. As a result of their smears, reputable people are being denied their ordinary, individual liberties. What will happen when this professor returns overseas? It will be well known abroad that he was prevented from going into the Territory, and people will begin to use their imagination as to why he was excluded, with the result that this man's reputation will suffer.

I say that the Minister has not cleared the matter up satisfactorily, and I hope that members of the Opposition will continue to return to this subject-matter until such time as the Government is prepared to disclose to us some of the actual facts and happenings in regard to this particularly discreditable incident. .

Suggest corrections