The Lessons of History

Wednesday, 4 December 2002

Today brought the news that the Federal ALP has finally arrived at a firm, principled stance on Attorney General Daryl Williams' proposed extension of ASIO powers. The ALP position is that basically it's OK, as long as the government appoints some retired judges to keep our lads in trenchcoats from running totally amok. It led me to do a Google search which turned up this page, at the Australian Archives web-site, covering events and issues that dominated cabinet discussions during 1951. One of these events was Dr H.J. Evatt's successful High Court challenge to the constitutionality of the 1950 Communist Party Dissolution Act. In 1951 the Menzies government put the issue to a referendum

seeking Commonwealth powers to enact laws dealing with communists and communism

The referendum was put to the Australian people on September 22, 1951:

The Federal Executive of the ALP decided to support a 'No' vote. This was despite having directed Labor Senators to allow passage of the government’s original legislation the previous year. The new opposition leader, 'Doc' Evatt, who had represented the Waterside Workers Federation in their High Court challenge, campaigned vigorously for a 'No' vote, warning that Menzies wished to establish a police state in Australia. How voters reconciled this dire claim with Evatt’s equal insistence that hysteria was Menzies stock in trade is unclear. Menzies himself encountered some of the rowdiest and most violent meetings in federal campaign history. It did not help that he also made heavy weather of presenting the 'Yes' case. He had particular difficulty explaining how denying the civil liberties of otherwise law-abiding citizens simply because they held different political beliefs protected the basic freedom of all. That some Liberal Party members and conservative Anglican churchmen openly disparaged the government’s proposals did not help his case either.

As Dr J W Knott, author of the page remarks:

One of the cherished myths of the ALP is that against all predictions and through tireless effort, 'Doc' Evatt won the 'No' case. A more likely explanation is that faced with a proposal for constitutional change a majority of the electorate (as it nearly always has) took the safe option and voted 'No'.

Clearly our modern ALP has decided to view these events in a more realistically historical light, rather than pursue Evatt's quixotic and electorally damaging idealism on the issue of civil liberties. Every little bit helps to maintain Labor's credibility as an alternative government.