Douglas, Roger --- "Saving Australia from Sedition: Customs, the Attorney-General's Department and the Administration of Peacetime Political Censorship" [2002] FedLawRw 5; (2002) 30(1) Federal Law Review 135
[*] School of Law and Legal Studies, La Trobe University,
[1] In his history of the Communist Party of Australia between 1920–42 (The Reds (1998)), Stuart Macintyre provides details of numerous bashings, raids, arrests, trials and prison sentences (often in default, for non-payment of fines). He also provides details of surveillance and infiltration of the party, actual and attempted deportations, and of political censorship. For page references, see his index, at 473. Frank Cain, The Origins of Political Surveillance in Australia (1983) (Origins) provides details of surveillance of the Party, and some details of other anti-communist measures taken between 1920–1948. His The Australian Security Intelligence Organization: an Unofficial History (1994) (ASIO) includes details of post-war anti-Communist measures: see especially at 88–116. Don Watson, Brian Fitzpatrick: A Radical Life (1979) provides numerous examples of anti-Communist measures. Lawrence W Maher has written two comprehensive accounts of the post-war sedition trials of communists: 'The use and abuse of sedition' [1992] SydLawRw 21; (1992) 14 Sydney Law Review 287 and 'Dissent, disloyalty and disaffection: Australia's last cold war sedition case.' [1994] AdelLawRw 1; (1994) 16 Adelaide Law Review 1. In Roger Douglas, Trials of the Left, 1930–39 (Paper presented at Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference, 20–23 February 2001), I present preliminary findings in relation to arrests and trials in connection with participation in Communist-organised activities in the 1930s. See also the text below nn 2 to 8, 11–30 and the references cited therein.
[2] War Precautions Repeal Act 1920 (Cth) s 12; Crimes (Amendment) Act 1926 (Cth); Crimes Amendment Act 1932 (Cth); National Security (Subversive Associations) Regulations 1940 (Cth); Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth). The Approved Defence Projects Act 1947 (Cth) was directed at opposition to the development of the Woomera rocket range (which involved both communist and non-communist activists). The National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949 (Cth) sought to cut off economic support for the 1949 miners' strike, and is to be understood as an anti-communist measure insofar as the strike was seen at the time as a communist-led strike. On these last two measures, see Watson, above n 1, 210–11, 221 (Watson incorrectly states that only 3 union leaders were imprisoned under the Act); Robin Gollan, Revolutionaries and Reformists: Communism and the Australian Labour Movement, 1920–1955 (1975), 239–42, 246–8.
[3] New sections 24A to 24E were added by the War Precautions Repeal Act 1920 (Cth) s 12.
[4] Criminal Code (Qld) ss 44–6, 52; Criminal Code (WA) ss 44–6, 52. In the other states (including Tasmania, which subsequently codified the relevant law (Criminal Code (Tas) ss 66, 67)), seditious libel, uttering seditious words, and participation in a seditious conspiracy were common law offences.
[5] See below nn 32–4, 36.
[6] On this legislation, see Roger Douglas, 'Keeping the Revolution at Bay: The Unlawful Associations Provisions of the Commonwealth Crimes Act' (2001) 22 Adelaide Law Review 261.
[7] Gazette, 24 May 1940 (94 of 1940), 20 June 1940 (114 of 1940), under National Security (General) Regulations reg 17B.
[8] Gazette, 15 June 1940 (110 of 1940) (CPA, League for Peace and Democracy, Minority Movement); 20 June 1940 (114 of 1940) (Printers' Investment Co Pty Ltd, Modern Publishers Pty Ltd, Forward Press Pty Ltd); 24 June 1940 (117 of 1940) (Communist League); 6 July 1940 (127 of 1940) (Revolutionary Workers' League); 8 August 1940 (154 of 1940) (Australian Youth Council); 24 February 1941 (34 of 1941) (League of Young Democrats).
[9] Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania.
[10] Summaries of the current law in these areas are to be found in Butterworths, Halsbury's Laws of Australia, vol 9 (at 7 July 1998) 130 Criminal Law, 'VI(2) Offences against the Government and the Public' [130–12000]–[130,12310], and LBC, Laws of Australia, vol 10 (at 1 February 1997) Criminal Law, '10.10 Public Order'. While the law has been liberalised in some respects (especially in relation to public assemblies), the current law still reflects its British antecedents in many respects.
[11] Leicester Webb, Communism in Australia:. A Survey of the 1951 Referendum (1954) 43.
[12] The most comprehensive accounts of the use of the Commonwealth sedition legislation are those provided by Maher, above n 1.
[13] During the depression years, the CPA had established Workers' Defence Corps (WDC) in several states. A Labor Defence Corps had been established in the northern coalfields of New South Wales in the aftermath of violent confrontations between police and striking miners. A Workers' Defence Army also operated in the area. A body called the Unemployed Defence Corp aroused concern when its members practiced drill on the Perth Esplanade. Some of these bodies seem to have amassed arms and ammunition, but these were never used, and their whereabouts tended to become known to the police. The WDC provided protection for communist speakers from their New Guard opponents, and was sometimes involved in organising resistance to attempted evictions. Insofar as its members used violence, this involved brawling, physical assaults, and the use of blunt instruments, rather than firearms. See Macintyre, above n 1, 210–11; Miriam Dixson, 'Rothbury' (1970) 17 Labour History 14, 22–6; Andrew Moore, The Secret Army and the Premier: Conservative Paramilitary Organisations in New South Wales, 1930–32 (1989) 79–80. The Governor-General may give directions by proclamation forbidding participation in military exercises and a person who disobeys these directions is guilty of an offence: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 27.
[14] Harold Devanny, the publisher of the Workers' Weekly, was charged with having solicited money for an unlawful association, on the basis of an appeal in the Workers' Weekly for funds for an anti-War conference. His conviction was overturned on appeal to the High Court: R v Hush; Ex parte Devanny [1932] HCA 64; (1932) 48 CLR 487. Charges against others who had been charged under the legislation were not proceeded with. For a discussion of his case, see Douglas, above n 6.
[15] This estimate is based on cases that were listed in one or more of the following sources: indexes to the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Argus and the Melbourne Herald; cases referred to in publications of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties; and cases that were the subject of National Archives of Australia files whose titles indicated that they related to prosecutions under relevant regulations. Precise estimates are complicated by lack of information about some defendants' politics. However, of those defendants who appeared to have been communist sympathisers, fewer than half were charged under the Subversive Associations Regulations and of these, about a third were also prosecuted for offences under the General Regulations. Macintyre, above n 1, 401 suggests that the figure of 50 is an under-estimate, but he does not point to any sources to support this contention.
[16] There are no references to Crimes Act prosecutions in any of the sources cited at above n 15. (It is unlikely that a political prosecution would have escaped the attention of both the press and the Australian Council for Civil Liberties.) See also Maher's statement ('Dissent, Disloyalty and Disaffection', above n 1, 13–14) that Burns was the first person to be prosecuted for a Commonwealth sedition offence. The government relied on its powers under regulations made under the National Security Act 1939 (Cth) both to ban communist newspapers and to ban the CPA.
[17] Two Queenslanders—Fred Paterson and Phil Bossone—were charged with uttering seditious words. Paterson was acquitted, and at his second trial Bossone was convicted and released on a good behaviour bond: Ross Fitzgerald, The People's Champion, Fred Paterson: Australia's only Communist Party Member of Parliament (1997) 49–52; Workers' Weekly 3 October 1930, 2. Robert Knox (whose politics are not clear) was committed to trial on a charge of uttering seditious words by the Hobart Police Court: Sydney Morning Herald, 25 May 1932. (I have not found any report of his fate). Henry Wilkins was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 'sedition' in Western Australia: Geoffrey Bolton, A Fine Country to Starve in (1994), 147. An IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) activist, E A Dickenson, was convicted and imprisoned in South Australia in 1928 for publishing seditious words: Cain, Origins, above n 1, 200.
[18] See Douglas, above n 1, for approximate (but conservative) details of arrests and trials for public order offences in the 1930s.
[19] Examples include the Wollongong and North Fremantle Councils' refusal to allow their halls to be used for a meeting of the Friends of the Soviet Union (Sydney Morning Herald, 23 April 1932, 17; Justina Williams, The First Furrow (1976), 17); the cancellation by the Melbourne City Council of an agreement to let the Town Hall for an anti-war conference (Notes on Communism No 46, NAA (National Archives of Australia): A467 BUN94/SF42/64 286); and refusals by the Sydney City Council to permit its Town Hall to be used for a showing of the film, Ten Days that Shook the World or for the opening of the CPA's 1937 election campaign (Workers' Weekly 11 December 1936, 10 August 1937).
[20] Examples are rare. A New South Wales schoolteacher was dismissed on her return from a visit to the Soviet Union, but was subsequently reinstated: Macintyre, above n 1, 348; Workers' Weekly 10 February 1933. On his return from May Day celebrations in Moscow, as a delegate of the Australian Railways Union, LA Mullins was dismissed from his job as a railways porter on the grounds that he had been absent without leave: Sydney Morning Herald, 5 November 1932, 13. A one-legged Gallipoli veteran was reportedly dismissed from his Melbourne City Council employment on the grounds of his alleged communist associations: Argus, 11 May 1933, 6.
[21] Watson, above n 1, 82.
[22] See Macintyre, above n 1, 192, 217–9, 226, 270, 402; Cain, Origins, above n 1, 254–6.
[23] See Macintyre, above n 1, 60, 88, 156–7, 193–4, 226. Moore's account of the 'Secret Army' (above n 13) includes details of numerous incidents where police turned a blind eye to anti-communist violence. There were, however, limits to the level of violence that police were willing to tolerate, and by the late 1930s, the Victorian Council of Civil Liberties was expressing satisfaction at the willingness of the Victoria police to provide protection to communist speakers.
[24] See, eg, Cain, Origins, above n 1, 254, who contrasts the vigour with which the Commonwealth Investigation Bureau (the CIB) monitored the activities of communists and IWW activists, with its relative unconcern with indigenous and even foreign Fascism. See also Macintyre, above n 1, 70. The role of ASIO in supervising communism and communists is discussed in, inter alia, Cain, ASIO, above n 1, 90, 96–113.
[25] Ibid 106–13.
[26] Ibid 104–6.
[27] Egon Kisch, a Czech-born journalist, had been invited to Australia by the Australian branch of the Congress Against War and Fascism, to address an anti-war conference. He was initially denied entry to Australia, but was allowed to land following a successful habeas corpus application: R v Carter; Ex parte Kisch [1934] HCA 63; (1934) 52 CLR 234. He was then required to undergo a dictation test in Scots Gaelic, which despite his familiarity with most European languages, he failed. A conviction for being illegally in Australia was overturned when the High Court held that Scots Gaelic was not a 'European language' for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1901 (Cth): R v Wilson; Ex parte Kisch [1934] HCA 50; (1934) 52 CLR 221. He thoroughly enjoyed his visit, and the government's successive embarrassments: Egon Erwin Kisch, Australian Landfall (1937). There are numerous accounts of his visit, and the surrounding circumstances including: C M H Clark, A History of Australia (1987) vol 6, 463–76; Macintyre, above n 1, 270–3. International Labor Defence published a pamphlet, How the Kisch-Griffin Ban was Smashed. Knowles advised that the pamphlet should not be barred from transmission through the post: Knowles to Director-General, Posts &Telegraphs, 27 September 1935, NAA: A467/1 BUN89/SF42/9.
[28] It was an offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 30FC to allow premises to be used by an unlawful association. Attempts to enforce the section proved largely unsuccessful. First, owners had to be identified. Second, they had to be warned that a forthcoming meeting fell within the section. (Sometimes there was little time between the Commonwealth becoming aware of a proposed meeting, and the date of the meeting.) In relation to premises occupied by the Party, a problem arose in relation to the identification of the lessees of the premises. (These changed frequently.) See generally, NAA: A467 Bundle 94/SF42/8 32/1254.
[29] Cain, Origins, above n 1, 199, 245.
[30] See Douglas, above n 6. In the late 1920s, the Commonwealth Investigation Branch had urged that the provisions be used against the IWW, but Sir Robert Garran, the Solicitor-General, had recommended the use of the Post and Telegraph Act to stop the transmission of IWW publications: Cain, Origins, above n 1, 199.
[31] These were: a pamphlet, Bond Certificate Campaign—First Loan of the Elected Government of the Republic of Ireland (T&C 20/B3450) Gazette, 6 May 1920 (no 39 of 1920); a song entitled 'The Sinn Fein Volunteers' Customs Proclamation No 21 (T&C 20/B12328), dated 15 December 1920, Gazette, 17 December 1920 (no 112 of 1920); The Irish Republic. Why? Customs Proclamation No 22 (T&C 20/B/12842), dated 23 December 1920, Gazette, 30 December 1920 (no 116 of 1920).
[32] Customs Proclamation No 24 (T&C 21/B/365), Gazette, 3 February 1921 (No 11 of 1921).
[33] Customs Proclamation No 37 (T&C 21/B/5230), dated 16 June 1921, Gazette, 23 June 1921 (No 55 of 1921). Cain wrongly gives the date as 1927: Cain, Origins, above n 1, 196.
[34] Customs Proclamation No 181 (T&C 29B/2880), Gazette 19 December 1929 (No 118 of 1929).
[35] In view of the frequent changes in the name of the urban non-Labor party between 1920–50, and in view of the fact that some non-Labor governments were coalitions while others were not, I shall use the term 'conservative' as the generic term for non-Labor governments.
[36] Customs Proclamation No 221 (T&C 32/A2549), Gazette, 4 August 1932 (No 58 of 1932).
[37] New Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations were made in 1956. This involved the re-numbering of prohibited items, with seditious literature being item 21, the other categories being grouped together as item 20. Items 20 and 21 were deleted from Schedule 2 by the Hawke government: Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment) (SR 331 of 1983) reg 4. The Regulation came into operation on 1 February 1984.
[38] Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations reg 4A(1A)(a)(ii), later reg 4A(1A)(iv). In 1990 the relevant regulation was broadened. Express references to terrorism were replaced by a general ban on material which promoted, incited or instructed in matters of crime or violence: SR 39 of 1990.
[39] Customs Act 1901 (Cth) ss 203 (goods suspected of being forfeited could be seized), 229 (prohibited imports are forfeited).
[40] Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 205.
[41] Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 207.
[42] White could be taken as implying otherwise. In the course of a speech during a 1935 debate on censorship, he explained that books would sometimes be investigated for possible banning on the basis of reviews, sometimes on the basis of lists of books banned overseas, and sometimes following complaints from readers in Australia: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 335. The files on seditious literature suggest a somewhat different picture: decisions on bans were almost invariably a response to an attempt to import a particular work. There is no evidence of pre-emptive proscription. White may, however, have been referring to moral censorship.
[43] Brief biographical details of politicians and administrators mentioned more than twice in this article are provided in Appendix 1.
[44] For the history of this complaint, see NAA: A425/122 39/1345.
[45] One reason for the lack of complaints may be the thoroughness with which the Department pursued communist literature prior to 1936. A second may be that those who would have been distressed by the importation of such literature did not frequent the kinds of bookshops where it was displayed for sale, and would therefore have been unaware of its existence.
[46] Cain, Origins, above n 1, 198–9.
[47] See Cain, Origins, above n 1, 243 for a discussion of the role of the Attorney-General's Department in the 1920s.
[48] Abbott (Acting Comptroller-General) to Officers, 6 November 1933, NAA: B13/0 1944/2540.
[49] The Communist Way Out: NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/45 34/280.
[50] Peter Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy and Sedition: One Hundred Years of Censorship in Australia (1974) 84.
[51] Cain, Origins, above n 1, 244–5.
[52] Works which Attorney-General's considered not to be seditious included: The Life and Struggles of Negro Toilers, NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/22 (handled under the 1929 proclamation); Bilten; A Blow at Intervention, NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/7. In November 1932, Knowles recommended that 4 of 5 publications (one consisting of 7 volumes) by William F Brown were seditious, NAA: A467/1/BUN20/SF7/24. In July 1933, he advised in relation to 13 pamphlets that all but two (The Victory of the Oil Workers and The Conditions of the Proletariat in the USSR) were seditious: Knowles to Comptroller-General (CG) 11 July 33, NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/29. In contrast, between January 1932–December 1933, 66 publications were banned. Following the government's adoption of the more liberal policy in relation to communist publications, the 60 publications banned without review by Attorney-General's were all removed from the banned list.
[53] Watson, above n 1, 69.
[54] A 1935 submission from White to Cabinet suggests otherwise. Writing of the then current system, he claimed: 'Under this system the Minister for Customs makes the final decision, and while the system causes some delay, it is better than prior to 1933 when practically all the decisions were made by the Customs Department': 'Cabinet Agenda 1575' NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3. This is inconsistent with Abbott's memorandum of 6 November 1933. The apparent inconsistency may be resolved if 'making the final decision' were to mean 'making the final decision, in the event of being asked by an importer to do so'. Any other meaning would mean that his statement would be inconsistent with the claim that there was a right of appeal to the Minister, since this would be pointless if the Minister routinely made the de facto final decision.
[55] See question, Senator Rae (ALP, NSW) to Senator Pearce (UAP, WA) (representing Henry Gullett, Minister for Trade and Customs), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 20 October 1933, 3745. Appeals seem to have been rare, and there do not appear to be any instances of a successful appeal.
[56] A W Martin (assisted by Patsy Hardy), Robert Menzies: a Life, (1993) vol 1, 202.
[57] NAA: A425/122 36/10585.
[58] NAA: A425/122 39/1345.
[59] Walter Greene (Nat, Richmond; Minister for Trade and Customs answering)), Frank Brennan (ALP, Batman); Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 11 May 1921, 8273, Littleton Groom (Nat, Darling Downs, for Greene), answering Thomas Ryan (ALP, West Sydney), ibid 19 July 1921, 10223.
[60] Herbert Pratten (Nat, Parramatta; Minister for Trade and Customs and for Health) (answer to Percy Coleman (ALP, Reid)), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 18 November 1927, 1633; Henry Gullett (Nat, Henty, Minister for Trade and Customs) (answer to Charles Culley (ALP, Dennison)), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 18 March 1927, 1320.
[61] The Commonwealth Investigation Branch was provided with lists by the Victorian Collector of Customs, but these were sometimes incomplete. Browne, after reporting that he had sent a list based on Victorian sources to his Director in Canberra, wrote to the Collector stating that Central Customs had permitted the Director to sight a list of prohibited literature, and that the Victorian list had included only about six of the items on the list. Since the list in question had included eight publications, there would have been about two publications on the Victorian list but not the Central list: Browne to Collector (Vic) 18 December 1933, David Swale (Acting Collector (Vic)) to Browne 15 September 1933, NAA: B13/0 1944/2540.
[62] On importers, see White, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 354. On the general public, see question, Senator Rae to Senator Pearce, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 20 October 1933, 3745. In relation to the list, Pearce said: 'It is not the practice to publish lists of publications containing seditious literature inasmuch as it is considered that the publication of the names of such prohibited literature would unnecessarily advertise the particular publications.' See also: question, George Lawson (ALP, Brisbane) to T W White, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 25 October 1933, 3900. In answer to a question from John Curtin (ALP, Fremantle), White went further. It was not government policy to disclose even the number of books banned in Australia: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 25 September 1936, 590.
[63] See question on notice, John Rosevear (ALP, Dalley) to White, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 21 November 1933, 4865. White's justification was that a list of titles would not assist a person to assess whether the law was being administered properly, and the distinction was justified on the grounds that seditious literature was dealt with not by the Book Censorship Board but by the Customs and Attorney-General's Departments.
[64] Minutes of meeting between G Fitzpatrick, R Hall and TW White, NAA: A467 BUN21/SF7/1. A similar argument had been used by Fenton (in his role as Minister for Trade and Customs in the Scullin government) in defence of his reluctance to reveal the contents of the list of obscene publications. He had added that one danger of revealing salacious titles was that they might be ordered by mail, in which case, their importation might well not be detected: answer to Richard Crouch (ALP, Corangamite), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 30 July 1930, 4926.
[65] Cain, Origins, above n 1, 198.
[66] He subsequently became Postmaster-General in the Lyons government and was responsible for administering the ban on the postal transmission of communist publications.
[67] The policy is cited by White: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 346. It was communicated to the Secretary of the NSW Australian Railways Union in a letter dated 28 January 30: Workers' Weekly, 14 February 1930.
[68] These estimates are based on the incomplete lists to be found in NAA: B13/0 1944/2540.
[69] James Fenton (ALP, Maribyrnong, Minister for Trade and Customs) (answer to Richard Crouch (ALP, Corangamite)), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 30 July 1930, 4926. File NAA: B13/0 1944/2540 includes details of 19 foreign publications (one, a volume including 7 'publications') which were to be allowed in.
[70] The memorandum, T&C memo 32/A 2349 of 16 August 1932, is noted in Clerk in Charge to WA Collector, 8 Dec 1932, NAA: A425/122 36/5307. The policy in favour of British publications also seems to have been operative, at least in 1932. The only reference in the file to publications prohibited in 1932 was to a number of US publications by one W M Brown.
[71] Coleman, above n 50, 83. I have not been able to trace any order rescinding the earlier instruction and Coleman does not cite any. The 'foreign language' exception was still accepted by Customs in February 1933. However, noting a file minute from Latham to the effect that the policy was subject to the proviso that '[e]nquiry to be made re Jugo Slav Communist newspapers particularly in WA', Hall, the Comptroller-General sought Knowles' advice in relation to whether the Crveni Kalendar—a Chicago-published, Yugoslav publication which had been imported into Western Australia—should be banned. Knowles was initially of the view that it should not be, given the policy. After having obtained a translation, and at the urging of Jones of the CIB, he agreed that it fell within the prohibition, and it was banned: NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/28. Even in late 1933, the policy seems to have had some operation. A memorandum from Maurice Synan (Collector, Victoria) to Browne, 21 November 1933 (NAA: B13/0 1944/2540) points out that La Vie Proletarienne fell within the prima facie 'foreign language' exemption. He resubmitted the publication—a newspaper published in Belgium, which, despite its name, was in Italian—for a report on whether it contained any objectionable matter. The report concluded that the paper was communist, but that it made no reference to Australia, the Empire, nor to anyone domiciled in Australia.
[72] By 1937, at least 23 foreign language publications had been banned. Works excluded which freely circulated in Britain included work by Fox, Hutt, Palme Dutt and Pollitt, along with International Press Correspondence.
[73] For accounts of the campaign, see Coleman, above n 50, 84–6; Martin, above n 56, 200–1; Watson, above n 1, 67–70.
[74] 'Communistic Literature', NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/1; Coleman, above n 50, 84.
[75] Launceston Examiner, 17 September 1935. White reiterated this principle in the course of his meeting with an anti-censorship deputation in October 1935, but stated that no application from a bona fide student had yet been received. Report of Proceedings of Deputation, 10 September 1935, 13 NAA: A467/1 BUNDLE 21/SF7/3.
[76] White, Submission to Cabinet Agenda 1575, par 25 NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3.
[77] White, Submission to Cabinet Agenda 1575, par 24 NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3.
[78] 'Censorship of books—Political books', NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3.
[79] Knowles, minute 20 March 1936; 'Censorship of books—political books', NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3.
[80] 'Censorship of books—Political books', NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3.
[81] Answer to question, Edward Holloway (ALP, Melbourne Ports) to Lyons, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 8 May 1936, 1430–1.
[82] Answer to question, John Curtin (ALP, Fremantle) to Lyons, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 22 May 1936, 2243.
[83] In answer to a question from John Curtin (ALP, Fremantle), in relation to the alleged seizure by Customs of Mill's An Essay on Liberty, White began by stating that 'I cannot say whether the book last indicated is an essay on liberty or licence but some people find it difficult to distinguish between these two subjects': Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 23 September 1936, 397–8.
[84] See eg Boniwell to CG, NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/63 33/1267 (re The Only Way Out); Knowles to CG, 17 October 1933, NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/64 (The Paris Commune. A Story in Pictures).
[85] Knowles to CG, 18 September 1933, NAA: A425/122 37/9231. This approach is arguably slightly more liberal than Knowles' analysis of Dutt's World Politics 1918–1936 might suggest. There Knowles considered that the book did not 'contain any direct incitement to violence and civil war for the attainment of the world socialist organization, which the author regards as inevitable. Besides its propagandist object, the book may be of interest to students of political history and theory.' He nonetheless considered that: 'On a strict interpretation of the prohibition contained in the Regulations, the book would appear to be a prohibited import.' Knowles to CG, 4 November 1936. Given his conclusion that the book should be allowed in under the 1936 guidelines, his assessment of whether the book could fall within the Regulations was not of central importance.
[86] Knowles to CG, 17 October 1933, NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/64. The passage is at 55, NAA: A467/1 BUN20/SF7/64.
[87] Brossois, Clerk Investigation Section to Collector, 27 July 1933; Collector to CG, 29 July 1933, rec prohibited; CG to Sec A-G's request for advice, 8 August 1933; seditious, Knowles to CG, 18 September 1933 NAA: A425/122 37/9231 in relation to A Badayev, Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma which advocated turning imperialist wars into civil wars.
[88] Brossois, Clerk Investigation Section to Collector (NSW), 27 July 1933; Collector to CG, 29 July 1933, rec prohibited; CG to Sec A-G's, request for advice, 8 August 1933; seditious, Knowles to CG, 18 September 1933; NAA: A425/122 37/9231 in relation to K Neukranz, Barricades in Berlin. The prohibition was later lifted on the grounds that the book did not advocate the overthrow of an Australian government. F Wolf, Floridsdorf, a play dealing with a workers' insurrection in the Floridsdorf district of Vienna, was considered seditious, but the Attorney-General's Department recommended that it nonetheless might be allowed in, and under the more liberal policy, its importation was permitted: NAA: A425/122 36/5523.
[89] Power to Inspector, 17 September 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5522.
[90] See for instance his analysis of G Trease, The Call to Arms. This book dealt with a war between two fictitious Latin American countries, one called Coravia:
True to communistic principles, the Coravians turn the capitalist war into a civil war and make Coravia 'a new country and a better one'.
The book is undoubtedly communistic propaganda. The foundation of the plot may have been the Chaco dispute in South America but the author hides the scene ... By inference, the book would incite the revolutionaries of other countries to follow the example of the Coravian revolutionaries, but there is no direct incitement to overthrow by force or violence the established government of any civilised country.
I think that this is a case in which the Minister may exercise his discretion under the Regulations and consent to the admission of the book.
Knowles to CG, 1 September 1936, NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/35 34/140/25; A425/122 36/8843.
Implicit in the assumption that this was a case for the exercise of Ministerial discretion was the assumption that this was a prohibited import: otherwise there would have been no discretion to exercise. See likewise his analysis of International Literature:
In my opinion, the publication is a subtle form of communist propaganda and, as such, on a strict interpretation of the Regulations, a prohibited import. It does not, however, directly invite the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of any part of the King's Dominions. I think that this is a case in which the Minister may exercise his powers under the Regulations and consent to its entry into the Commonwealth: Knowles to CG, 1 June 36, NAA: A425/122 36/5303 (emphasis in original).
In assessing Information Bulletin of the Young Communist International No 1, he concluded that the publication was a prohibited import:
It is evident, therefore, that the publication is an appeal to the youth, not only of France to propagate Marxism throughout the world. 'Marxism is the revolutionary theory that shows the way to a new world' (p 32). Soviet Russia is held up to the youth of the world as an example of what can be done by organization, the inference being that the youth of other countries should follow the Russian experiment. This necessitates the use of force or violence: Knowles to CG, 17 December 1936, NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/36 24/140/26.
[91] 'Communistic publications', NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/1, A467/1 BUN94/SF42/24. The memorandum related to 60 works that had been banned by Customs during the period when Customs had assumed sole responsibility for the censorship of seditious literature. No action was taken on Tipping's report, which was confined to an assessment of whether the works fell within the Regulation. Instead, after consultation between White and T C Brennan, the Acting Attorney-General, it was decided that the question of whether books on the list had been properly seized should not be re-opened, except where requests were made in relation to particular books: Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936, Abbott to Sec, A-G's, 11 June 1936 ,NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/24.
[92] They almost invariably were. Many of the publications on the list were subsequently re-considered and a decision made that they be allowed in. The remainder do not seem to have been re-assessed, but they were not included on the Customs Department's 1937 list of banned publications.
[93] Cited, Brossois to NSW Collector, 3 October 1935, NAA: A425/122 1936/5534.
[94] The ban on the Communist Manifesto was particularly pointless: as early as 1926, a local edition had been printed by the CPA: this was referred to by John Latham (Nat, Kooyong), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 January 1926, 460.
[95] Acting Collector of Customs (Vic) to Inspector, A-G's, 15 September 1933, NAA: B13/0 1944/2540. It is not clear when it was removed, but W Macmahon Ball reported that it had been removed by 1935: 'The Australian Censorship' (1935) 26 Australian Quarterly 9, 13. The same memo recorded that What is to be Done? had been banned.
[96] Works admitted as theoretical included: Socialism and War and War and the Second International (notified, Acting Collector of Customs (Vic) to Inspector, A-G's, 19 February 1936 NAA: B13/0 1944/2540); Lenin on Democracy Trade Unions and the Murderers of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg; Budnov's Leninism (Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936, NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/23 34/140/12); Lenin's Complete Works (3 October 1935, NAA: A425/122 1936/5524); What is to be Done? (removed towards the end of 1935, see Roy Rawson (radical bookshop proprietor) to Theo Lucas (rationalist and anti-censorship campaigner), 21 July 1937, Fitzpatrick Papers, ANL MS 4965, 9906).
[97] The volumes had been imported by the Myer Emporium for a client for private use. Customs considered that volumes 1, 5, 7, 8 and 11 were possibly seditious: CG to A-G's, 13 February 1940. The assessment quoted is Knowles': Knowles to CG, 21 February 1940. Lenin's Selected Works vol II had been prohibited, but several of his works had already been de-listed.
[98] T C Brennan to Abbott, 6 August 1935 NAA: A425/122 1935/5652.
[99] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 352. It was not clear, however, whether he had seditious literature in mind when he made this observation, but he probably did, given that public libraries were more likely to stock seditious literature than they were to stock obscene literature.
[100] Minutes of a meeting between Fitzpatrick, Hall and White ,NAA: A467 BUN21/SF7/1.
[101] See Brossois to Collector (NSW), 3 October 1935, NAA: A425/122 1936/5524; on the Selected Works, see NAA: A425/122 37/9231.
[102] Indeed, because a generally unobjectionable book could fall foul of censorship on the grounds of a particular passage, a book might be banned, while unobjectionable sections could appear in pamphlet form. There is at least one example of this (but it is from the mid 1930s). Crisis on Clydesdale, a non-seditious chapter from the banned Conditions of the Working Class in Britain, was released while the book remained banned: Abbott to Collectors ,17 March 1936, NAA: A425/122 36/5522.
[103] Reference to A-G's, 11 June 1936, NAA: A425/122 1936/5308.
[104] Knowles' willingness to do so may have been influenced by the fact that this now mattered only if the publication warranted prohibition under the more liberal policy.
[105] See Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936, NAA: A425/122 36/5525; 1 September 1936, NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/35 34/140/25; A425/122 36/8843; Boniwell to CG, August 1937, NAA: A425/122 37/9231; Knowles to CG, NAA: A432/85 38/1022.
[106] NAA: A425/122 1936/5308.
[107] NAA: A425/122 36/5303; NAA: A425/122 5307; NAA: A467 BUNDLE 93/SF42/44; NAA: A425/122 36/2506. The removal of the ban on Inpreccor was belatedly announced in Workers' Weekly on 23 July 1937. The report noted that '[s]ecretly and stealthily, in response to popular demands, the Lyons government has scored out the name from the banned list, though no announcement was made and no confirmation or denial could be obtained from the government. Pettily and childishly the Lyons government has lifted the ban so as to be able to reply to critics of its reactionary policy, but by secrecy it hoped to prevent the victory to the democratic people from being effective.' Copies were available from the Anvil Bookshop.
[108] Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936, NAA: A467/1 BUN89/SF42/12; Note to Menzies to White, 27 July 1937, NAA: A425/122 37/9231.
[109] NAA: A425/122 1936/5308; The Attorney-General decided, against the advice of the Acting Secretary, Attorney-General's, that the ban should be lifted: file note 10 June 1937, A467 BUNDLE 89/SF43/18.
[110] Recommended for admission: John Castieau (Second Assistant Secretary) for Acting Sec, A-G's to CG, 10 June 1937. Approved, White, 11 June 1937, A425/122 1937/5573.
[111] Knowles to CG, NAA: A432/85 38/1022. This book (by the author of British Imperialism in India) was definitely not the kind of Annual that middle class adults would normally give their grandchildren for Christmas. Its subversive contents included 'Rule Britannia. A most scurvy tale', and an alphabet rhyme, including: 'E stands for Empire, built upon blood; F is for Fascists a murderous brood'. White referred to this work in the 1935 censorship debate, adding the information that the subversive literature was supplemented by pictures. 'F is for Fascists' is accompanied by a drawing of 'a pile of skulls surmounted by the Union Jack, with a British officer with drawn sword standing alongside': Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 347.
[112] NAA: A425/122 37/13136.
[113] NAA: A425/122 37/9231.
[114] Workers' Weekly, 25 June 1937.
[115] NAA: A425/122 36/5523; NAA: A425/122 37/9231.
[116] McMahon Ball, The Herald, 16 June 1937 claimed no new works had been added after 1935. However, as late as June 1936, Knowles had recommended the banning of For Soviet Britain and Robson's How the Communist Party Works and Jackson's The Jubilee and How (Knowles to CG, 2 June 1936 NAA: A425/122 36/5304), Manuilsky's Revolutionary Crisis is Maturing and Revolutionary Crisis (Knowles to CG 3 June 36 NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/23 34/140/12); Dimitrov's The Working Class against Fascism (which would have been allowed in had it confined its attention to Fascist states, but which qualified for prohibition on the grounds of advocacy of revolution in Britain and of a national liberation movement in India: Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936 NAA: A467/1 BUN89/SF42/12), and several books of revolutionary songs (Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936, NAA: A425/122 36/5525). These appear on a 1937 list of prohibited publications (T&C 37/6068 in NAA: SP109/3/1 316/37). On 17 December 1936, he had written to the Comptroller-General recommending that the Information Bulletin of the Young Communist International No 1 was a prohibited publication. Cabinet decided to reverse this decision (NAA: A425/122 36/10585). In addition, on 3 June 1936, he had recommended that the ban on Stalin et al, Socialism Victorious continue: (NAA: A425/122 1936/5524).
[117] It is a tribute to the government's success in keeping the banned list secret that estimates of the number of banned books vary considerably. A 1936 minute for the Prime Minister stated that there were approximately 200 publications on the prohibited list, mainly booklets or pamphlets: 'Censorship of books', par 14 NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3S; Murray-Smith, 'Censorship and Literary Studies' in Geoffrey Dutton and Max Harris (eds), Australia's Censorship Crisis (1970) 77, 79, by contrast, estimates that the number of banned books was 165. An estimate by the BCAL was that between January 1932 and December 1933, 66 political books were banned; between December 1933 and 26 October 1934, 79 books were banned, and a further 12 books were banned between 26 October 1934 and 9 January 1935: Francis Baker (ALP, Griffith), Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 354, quoting Miss Kemp of the BCAL who had been given the figures by Customs. Between 16 January and 19 February 1936, another 32 works were banned (and 4 were removed from the banned list). In the following period, another 15 publications were added (and 2 removed): Wilson, Acting Collector of Customs, Victoria to Inspector, CIB, Melbourne, 19 February 1936: NAA: B13/0 1944/12540. These figures yield an aggregate close to 200.
[118] Abbott to Edmund Bonney (Chief Publicity Censor), 19 January 1943, NAA: SP109/3/1 316/37. The only books left on the list were books whose banning had been expressly approved by the Attorney-General's Department, and whose banning had not been subsequently reviewed.
[119] Collector of Customs (Vic) to Director, CIB, 21 February 1938, 20 February 1941, 19 February 1942, 22 May 1944, NAA: B13/0 1944/2540.
[120] In a 1942 memorandum, Knowles reiterated the 1936 policy, argued that 'seditious purpose' was to be given a narrow construction, and pointed out that the Regulation did not cover 'subversive' as opposed to 'seditious' literature. Seditious literature would be caught if it came in as postal matter, but not if it came in as freight. He suggested that the Regulation be amended: Knowles to Sec Department of Defence Co-ordination, 15 September 1942. The Department of the Army suggested an amendment to the Regulation, based on a Canadian precedent, but nothing came of this: NAA: A816/1 1/301/208. The problem was largely theoretical. The exigencies of war severely limited the foreign goods that could find their way to Australia. Moreover, foreign exchange controls meant that applications had to be made to import any publications from non-sterling bloc countries: see Fitzpatrick to Assist Sec, Australian-Soviet Friendship League, 15 February 1942, Fitzpatrick Papers, ANL MS 4965, 10145.
[121] NAA: A432/82 1950/428; A432/82 1950/1321.
[122] Power to Inspector, 7 August 1934, NAA: A425/122 36/5523, Cf Brossois to Collector, 15 August 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5523.
[123] Power to Inspector, 7 August 1934 NAA: A425/122 36/5523, cf Brossois to Collector, NSW 15 August 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5523.
[124] NAA: A467/1 BUN89/SF42/1. They were removed from the prohibited list towards the end of 1935: Roy Rawson to Theo Lucas, Fitzpatrick Papers, ANL MS 4965, 9906.
[125] Carne to Collector (WA), 28 November 1934, NAA: A467/1 BUN 89/SF42/1; cf Power to Inspector, 7 August 1934, NAA: A425/122 36/5523. If We are Fighting for a Communist Germany is the same publication as We are Fighting for a Soviet Germany, there was also disagreement in relation to this publication.
[126] Carne to WA Collector, 28 November 1924, NAA: A467/1 BUN89/SF42/1; Power to Inspector, 7 August 1934, NAA: A425/122 36/5523; T C Brennan to White 16 July 35 NAA: A425/122 1936/5524.
[127] Power to Senior Inspector ,28 June 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5303.
[128] Knowles to CG, 2 August 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5303.
[129] T C Brennan to Minister for Trade and Customs ,16 July 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5303.
[130] R B Curd (Collector (Queensland)) to CG, 7 April 1936, Knowles to CG, 1 June 36 NAA: A425/122 36/5303.
[131] Jones to Latham, 19 Dec 1933, NAA: A432/86 33/1136.
[132] Simonds to CG, 28 May 1935, NAA: A467 BUNDLE92/SF42/21 34/140/10.
[133] Boniwell (Assist Sec) to CG, 16 June 1935, NAA: A467 BUNDLE92/SF42/21 34/140/10.
[134] Abbott (CG) to Collectors, 14 August 1935, NAA: A467 BUNDLE92/SF42/21 34/140/10; in 1936, however, the matter was re-considered, and importation permitted: NAA: A467 BUNDLE 93/SF42/44.
[135] Knowles to CG, 11 July 1935, NAA: A425/122 1936/5524. For details of the litigation, see Douglas, above n 6.
[136] Simonds to CG, 30 July 1935, NAA: A425/122 1936/5524.
[137] Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936 ,NAA: A425/122 1936/5524.
[138] For Soviet Britain, Power to Inspector 19 September 1935 NAA: A425/122 36/5304; Pollitt's Harry Pollitt Speaks Power to Inspector, 17 September 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5522; Andrews' The Labor Party and the Menace of War and Robson's How the Communist Party Works (Power to Inspector, 19 September 1935, NAA: A425/122 36/5304) Soviet Power—The Only Way Power to Inspector, 7 August 1934, NAA: A425/122 36/5523.
[139] This scarcely needs documentation. Even before the 1936 liberalisation, Brossois and Knowles both considered that Lenin's Complete Works did not fall within the Regulation. See Brossois to NSW Collector ,19 May 1936, NAA: A425/122 1936/5524.
[140] The Workers' Educational Association, a body with links to the Communist Party, complained that its consignments were delayed while consignments addressed to 'respectable' bookshops were not. This had economic implications: its own bookshop's capacity to compete was adversely affected since other bookshops were able to meet the demand for books on its reading lists before its own bookshop could do so. In a memorandum in relation to the overlap between Customs and Postmaster-General's censorship, William Stanton noted that all printed matter in packages addressed to particular addresses (those of Radical bookshops) was inspected by the Customs authorities. Stanton, Inspector, Postal Services Branch to Dep Dir P&T, 8 March 1934, NAA: A432/86 34/140/PT5.
The use of addresses as a basis for enforcing the prohibitions had always been part of the government's enforcement strategy. Once the proclamation of February 1921 had been made, the Commonwealth Investigation Branch immediately began preparing a list of suspect addressees: Cain, Origins, above n 1, 196–9.
[141] For details, see NAA: A425/122 26/5523. While seizing school textbooks seems both stupid and gratuitously petty, it was arguably justifiable given the law as it then stood, and given that one would expect such textbooks to include an even greater element of propaganda than schoolbooks in general. Seizing a textbook on a subject as innocuous as Botany was probably going too far, but, acting with the wisdom of hindsight, we should not forget Zhdanov and Lysenko. (In any case, the school books were returned.)
[142] Several of these volumes included particularly bloodthirsty exhortations and thoroughly earned their designation as seditious, but there were exceptions. Knowles could not resist the observation, in relation to one example of the happy peasant genre of 1930s Soviet Culture, that:
One cannot imagine local revolutionaries singing –
'Carefully
Pull out the weeds,
Study the soil
And its needs
Guided by science
Put your reliance
In the best choosing of seeds!'
Knowles to CG, 3 June 1936, NAA: A425/122 36/5525. The song is to be found in Proletarian Songs of the Soviet Union. People returning from visits to the Soviet Union regularly had books, slides and films seized: Macintyre, above n 1, 368.
[143] The Herald (Melbourne), 9 October 1934, 22. The report states that 'under a new regulation' booksellers 'are not allowed to return books to the publisher after the banning'. The 'new regulation' (presumably the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations of 1934) made no difference to the rights of booksellers to return books. The article cites no cases of importers not being allowed to return books. Rather, it cites a case where a private individual (not a bookseller) had imported 6 copies of a book which was banned for the first time subsequent to its arrival. These had been confiscated and no compensation given. The report does not indicate whether the person had sought the right to return the work to the publisher or other consignor.
[144] Quoted, Simonds to CG, 15 October 1934 ,NAA: A425/122 35/707.
[145] Minute, 16 October 1934 , NAA: A425/122 35/707.
[146] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 351.
[147] ALP MHR for Bourke, and committed civil libertarian.
[148] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 351–2.
[149] NAA: A425/122 1935/5652.
[150] See note to letter of 29 April 1936 NAA: A425/122 1936/5524.
[151] Moran, an activist in the Unemployed Workers' Movement, and later a union organiser, was one of the CPA's most effective speakers. Frequently arrested, he was an accomplished courtroom performer.
[152] NAA: A425/122 1936/5524.
[153] Agenda No 1575, par 22 NAA: A467/1 BUN21/SF7/3.
[154] Question Hurbert Lazzarini (ALP, Werriwa) to White, Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives 2 October 1935, 460–1.
[155] NAA: A425/122 36/5522.
[156] The saga is to be found in NAA: A425/122 1936/5308.
[157] NAA: A425/122 37/9231. In this case, delay could have been to the importer's advantage, given the policy change of 22 May 1936. (There is, however, nothing to suggest that the book was ever returned.)
[158] Workers' Weekly, 24 November 1936.
[159] All propaganda published by the Federation of Communist Anarchists (!) of Germany; all literature published by the Red International of Labor Unions, all Communist propaganda of the Communist Party of Great Britain. In addition, about thirty periodicals were banned: see list: NAA: B13/0 1944/2540.
[160] See the files on International Literature (NAA: A425/122 36/5303) and International Press Correspondence (NAA: A425/122 36/5307).
[161] NAA: A425/122 1936/5308. (If Moran had been advised prior to 15 December 1936 that if he wanted the book, he should enter an action to recover it, Customs would have been entitled to keep the book, but there is no evidence on the file that he ever was so advised.)
[162] McKissock to Collector (Vic), 13 December 1935, NAA: A467 BUNDLE 93/SF42/44.
[163] Abbott to Sec, A-G's, 8 January 1936, NAA: A467 BUNDLE 93/SF42/44.
[164] Simonds to CG, 31 January 1936, NAA: A467 BUNDLE 93/SF42/44.
[165] The file reports that 5 copies of Moscow Daily News had been returned to the Victorian Collector on 31 January 1936. These presumably were not McKissock's.
[166] NAA: A467 BUNDLE 93/SF42/44.
[167] However, the effective abandonment of the censorship of political publications coexisted with an intermittent willingness to censor radio broadcasts. The targets of these attempts went well beyond the CPA, the best known examples being the temporary closure of 2KY (the NSW Labor Council owned station) in December 1938, and insistence that Judge Foster amend a speech (on censorship) which he proposed to deliver over the ABC. In 1938, commercial stations were required to submit all scripts of proposed broadcasts about international relations to the Postmaster-General's Department. See Rupert Lockwood, War on the Waterfront (1987) 172–6; Fitzpatrick Papers, ANL MS 4965, 17,904.
[168] The 'United Front' period was characterised by a shift in party strategy. In the early 1930s, the CPA, like the Comintern, had sought to distance itself from 'reformist' parties and organisations, reserving much of its most bitter invective for attacks on the ALP and ALP-controlled unions. Following the rise of Hitler, the Comintern gradually shifted towards a strategy which envisaged cooperation between communists and others who, while not being communist themselves, might nonetheless share some of the same goals as the Comintern and its affiliated parties. This cooperation extended to the party's being willing to work with the leaders as well as the rank and file of leftish organisations. The ALP was unreceptive to overtures from those who shortly before had condemned the party as 'social fascists'. Within the unions, the CPA had more success, its pragmatic militancy winning it considerable support. The shift in strategy had been completed by 1936. For details, see Alistair Davidson, The Communist Party of Australia (1969) 72–97; Macintyre, above n 1, 244–87.
[169] From 1932 onwards, there was a steady decline in the frequency of arrests of leftist activists for public order offences: Douglas, above n 1.
[170] As early as 1927, the Party had published Stalin's The Theory and Practice of Leninism. In the 1930s, it produced editions of a number of the banned works of Lenin. One reason for the Commonwealth's reluctance to prosecute was pragmatism. See, eg, Knowles' advice in relation to a suggestion that the Barrier Daily Truth be prosecuted: a Broken Hill jury would never convict, and even a Riverina jury would be unlikely to be unanimous: Knowles to T C Brennan, 26 August 1935, NAA: A432 1935/1215.
[171] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 30F.
[172] Cain, Origins, above n 1, 224; Watson, above n 1, 82. Productions of the play were banned in states including New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. Queensland advised that in that state, theatre bans were a matter for local governments. The bans were circumvented by the presentation of 'private' performances. Some 10,000 people are alleged to have attended private performances in New South Wales: Workers' Weekly, 25 June 1937.
[173] See, eg, Duhig, Report of Proceedings of Deputation, 15 NAA: A467 BUNDLE21/SF7/3.
[174] Workers' Weekly, 14 February 1930, 1. It concluded by calling for the 'overthrow of the "Labor" government which is so ably carrying on Bruce's work'.
[175] Space does not permit a comprehensive summary. See generally John Sendy, Comrades Come Rally: Recollections of an Australian Communist (1978) 11–12. Bernice Morris faithfully served the Party, but admits (and regrets) that she never mastered the intricacies of Marxism: Between the Lines (1988). One writer who does seem to have been influenced by Marxist literature was Rawling: John Pomeroy, 'The Apostasy of James Normington Rawling' (1991) 37 Australian Journal of Politics and History 21, 32. However, under the 'scholarly literature' exemption, Rawling would have had access to the material in question, anyway. Besides, while an early recruit, his subsequent history provides warnings about the reliability of those attracted to the Party by reason rather than emotion.
[176] See, for instance, the contributions of Frederic Eggleston (self-styled individualist and former non-Labor Victorian Attorney-General), and J M Atkinson (of the Henry George League) in Report of Proceedings of Deputation, 13, 22 NAA: A467 BUNDLE21/SF7/3. In the 1926 debates on the Crimes Act 1926 (Cth), Francis Forde (ALP, Capricornia) cited instances of communist propaganda receiving widespread publicity in Nationalist Party propaganda: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 17 February 1926, 981. In 1932, Richard Casey (UAP, Corio) stated that he made it his business to read the Workers' Weekly and the Red Leader and advised fellow MPs to read these and other communist publications to gain insight into the nature of the communist threat: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 23 May 1932, 1173.
[177] Bernie Taft, Crossing thePartyLine: Memoirs of Bernie Taft (1994) 45.
[178] BA Santamaria, Santamaria: Against the Tide (1983) 7
[179] Advice on Evidence, 9 NAA: SP185/1 Box 69. Communist literature was also drawn on by speakers supporting the Crimes Bill 1926: see Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 28 Jaunary 1926, 460 (Latham), and by speakers supporting the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950: see Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 April 1950, 1999–2001 (Menzies); 10 May 1950, 2405–6 (Henry Pearce (Lib, Capricornia)), 11 May 1950, 2491–2 (John Cremean (ALP, Hoddle)); 2515–6 (Bruce Wight (Lib, Lilley)); 2554–5 (Leonard Hamilton (Lib, Canning)); 16 May 1950, 2640 (Lawrence Failes (CP, Lawson)); 1 June, 1950, 3573 (Hugh Robertson (CP, Riverina)); Senate, 6 June 1950, 3698–3700 (Sen Ivy Wedgwood (Lib, Vic)); 19 October 1950, 1039 (Sen Douglas Hannaford (LCL, SA)).
[180] Davidson, above n 168, estimates the Party's membership in 1934 as 2,840, and cites 4,000 as the Party's membership prior to its being banned in 1940 (at 69n, 82). The CPA did not stand candidates in the 1937 general election, and was banned in 1940. In the 1934 Senate elections, it won 2.2% of the vote nationally: Colin A Hughes and Bruce D Graham, A Handbook of Australian Government and Politics (1968), 352. (This was less than the percentage won by the Social Credit Party.) One reason for believing that, on balance, communist literature may have assisted the Party is that even if it alienated far more people than it converted, the pool of potential converts to the Party was much greater than its pool of supporters.
[181] See, for example, the 1935 Commonwealth parliamentary debate on censorship: Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 27 March 1935, 326–55.
[182] See, eg, Eggleston, Spicer Report of Proceedings of Deputation, 10 September 1935, 13, 19 NAA: A467/1 BUNDLE 21/SF7/3. Just occasionally, one senses that those using this argument were slightly dishonest, their real objection to censorship lying in their hope that some of the censored literature would appeal to the good sense of Australian workers.
[183] The change in party line did not go unnoticed. It underlay Knowles' proposals for re-writing the Regulation so that it did not extend to anti-Fascist propaganda. Power was struck by the change in tone of International Literature between 1934–35: 'I have read this copy [Jan 35] and the three preceding numbers carefully and am of the opinion that the policy of the directorate of the magazine has changed considerably in the past twelve months. Earlier copies contained articles and cartoons that were rabidly revolutionary but recent issues have been free from these objectionable features. Exception might, perhaps, be taken to some of the cartoons but these have little or no application to conditions in Australia and their significance is obscured if not lost to local readers.' Power to Senior Inspector, 28 June 1935, NAA: A467/1 BUN94/SF42/24 34/140/13.
[184] See, for instance, the report of the discussion between White and an anti-censorship deputation, 10 September 1935: Report of Proceedings of Deputation, 15–6 NAA: A467 BUNDLE21/SF7/3.
[185] This may explain why anti-censorship campaigners argued that the problem of seditious literature (insofar as there was one) should be handled through the courts rather than administratively: see Duhig, Report of Proceedings of Deputation, 15–6 NAA: A467 BUNDLE21/SF7/3. The anti-censorship argument to the effect that the issue should be tried by a court confused the question of whether the status of a book should be resolved by a court with the question of whether it should be resolved by a court constituted in a particular way and applying a particular standard of proof. As White pointed out, it was always open for the importer of a seized book to initiate a court action into the status of the relevant work: Minutes of meeting between G Fitzpatrick, R Hall and TW White, 6 NAA: A467 BUN21/SF7/1.
[186] McMahon Ball acknowledged Menzies' contribution in The Herald, 16 June 1937, implying that this was a consequence of a 1935 decision that the Attorney-General was to have the final say in relation to whether a publication was prohibited: 'Still Political Power over Books Some Critics Say', The Herald (Melbourne), 16 June 1937, 2. This analysis is incomplete: even after 1935, Knowles was generally endorsing recommendations from Customs. (And in 1936 White was claiming that he made the final decision.) What seems to have changed his recommendations was the 1936 Cabinet decision. Coleman, above n 50, 84 states that Menzies managed to wrest the relevant power from White in 1937, which does not explain the liberalisation which had already taken place and in any case seems wrong. Martin who emphasises Menzies' role in the liberalisation process does not discuss the process and by virtue of his (acknowledged) reliance on Coleman, perpetuates some of Coleman's errors: Martin, above n 56, 200–2. I have been unable to track down material bearing on Menzies' contribution to the 1936 change in policy. (It would be in character if he did, and the fact that his permanent head suggested a similar amendment also suggests this.)
[187] The formal ending of political censorship (except in relation to literature advocating terrorism) coincided with reforms to 'moral' censorship. These provoked motions in the Senate and the House of Representatives to disallow the Regulation (which had to be disallowed either in its entirety or not at all). In the course of the lengthy debates which followed, the fact that the Regulation also abolished political censorship (except in relation to material which advocated terrorism) was not even mentioned. See Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 4 April 1984, 1161–86, 1219–33; 5 April 1984, 1241–60; 2 May 1984, 1457–64; 10 May 1984, 1891–5, 1938–7; 29 May 1984, 2059–90; ibid, House of Representatives, 4 June 1984, 2840–55. The only two mentions of the changes to political censorship were by Senator Brian Harradine (Ind, Tasmania) (ibid, Senate, 2 May 1984, 1458) and Sen Gareth Evans (ALP, Vic; Attorney-General) (ibid, Senate, 29 May 1984, 2073) who treated it as of no importance.