• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

2 semper floreat 30th april 1971 at suggestions that he might actually have the second reading stage of the.Bill, that been conailted by the Government about certain other sections of the Vagrancy Act the introduction of this legislation, a number place the onus of proof upon the defendant of members of staff addressed to Professor it is also true that the same act is notorious Cowen the following letter (the name of one as being one of the most oppressive pieces of signatory is omitted at his request): legislation in this state and that the Queensland legal profession has at various times expressed its grave concern at the 6th April, 1971. reversal of the onus of proof in this and other legislation. The onus of proof Professor Zelman Cowen, provision Is the source of especially acute Vice-Chancellor, concern when contained in legislation University of Queensland, directed primarily at restricting a form of ST. LUCIA. political dissent. letters Thirdly, we think that the stiff fines and Dear Professor Cowen, gaol sentences provided for offences defined We are writing to you because we are in such a catch-all manner as doing any act seriously alarmed at the implications for or using any language which "if done or used freedom and order within the University of by him in a public place would be an offence cowen correspondence recent amendments to the Vagrants, Gaming under this Act or any other Act" display an and Other Offences Act. What Is especially utter disregard for the rule of law. perturbing is that the Minister for Police disruption to University activities have (Mr. Hodges) is reported as having stated As well as reassuring us on the question of cowen lashes out appalled me, and 1 have drawn and will that the legislation could be used to cover consultation between the Government and continue to draw the attention of the Senate sit-ins and similar occurrences within the the University, would you please let us have to any such threats or actions. What, in a different buildings of the Queensland Uni­ your own views on the points we have Dear Robyn, more fundamental sense, has destroyed all versity campus (Courier Mail, 27.3.71). In raised. For reasons that wilt be clear on reading the vestiges of respect is your association and view of the Minister's statement we should Yours sincerely, following it seems to me to be in the public collaboration with persons who will produce like to be assured that the Government did interest to have it reprinted, tt is a letter such documents as that which appeared in not at any time consult with the University N, Thornton, received by me from the Vice Chancellor the last issue of Semper Fioreat. What you concerning any of the provisions contained J. P. Richardson, after a circular in my name went out to are associated with, and involved in, is at in the amended Act In our opinion this type M. Hauber, members of the Senate inviting tiiem to a least as ugly as anything I have seen in my of repressive legislation is not merely illiberal I. Hinckfuss, lunch-hour meeting to discuss the proposed lifetime. but counterproductive and likely to lead to P. Wertheim, State legislation against sit-ins. serious unrest and disorder within the G. A. Malinas, Yours sincerely, University-we note that the Acting Presi­ C. Brown, Sth April, 1971 dent of the University Union is already on J. Bain, Zelman Cowen, record as having said that the new legislation G. R. Cochrane, Mr. D. O'Neill, Vice-Chancellor, would not stop occupations or demonstra­ R, Forward, Department of English, tions by students {Courier Mail, 27.3,71). J.W.Cleary, ST. LUCIA. I want to make a couple of comments about this. But first 1 would make it clear that I The Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences R. M. D. Brown, Act has been amended by the insertion of a J. Damm, Dear Mr. O'Neill, had nothing whatever to do with either the planning or the execution of the article in new section, section 4A. This section R. Yeates. I have your circular letter inviting me, with Semper on the Vice Chancellor. 1 would be provides a penalty of 200 dollars or six other members of Senate, to attend a willing to swear to that on oath. Further months Imprisonment for entering or re­ In a curt (100 words) reply, the Vice meeting on Thursday, April Sth. 1 see also than that, there is not a shred of evidence maining, without lawful excuse, in or upon Chancellor stated that he is on record as that a broadsheet distributed at the end of advanced in the letter as to the Character of any public or private building or on land saying that the University will, if need be, last week states that Professor Cowen and my supposedly influential relationship with associated with such a building. It further have recourse to the civil authorities, that is others have been invited to that meeting. the people (why not person?) who produced provides that if anyone, without lawful to say the police, to protect itself against excuse, remains in a private building or on Since you have included me in the circular it sit-ins, and that this Act gives the University land occupied or used in connection with letter, I think it proper to write to you to protection against such acts. He added that But my main concern is not with these such 3 building, and there does or says tell you that I shall not be attending. Over in this respect he wished to make it clear matters of fact. It is that the head of an anything which would be an offence in a the lunch hour on that day 1 have a that he supports the Act He added further institution like this should think this is a public place, he is guilty of an offence commitment of longer standing to address a that this is not to be construed as an fitting document to convey above his bringing a penalty of 200 dollars or six student meeting on issues relating to the expression of opinion in favour of the onus signature and title to a member of the staff, months in gaol. Finally, the section provides University. The rest of the day is taken up of proof provisions and that he does not on no more provocation than is occasioned that the onus is on the person accused to with University duties. by a uniformly polite circular. For this Is make any comnient on any other aspects of prove that he had a lawful excuse for the Act There are other reasons which would have obviously more than a personal communica­ entering or remaining in or upon any such led me to decline the invitation, even if I had tion, containing, as it does, declarations of building or land. The unsatisfactory nature of this reply not had such prior commitments. They are official intentions, and officially signed. scarcely needs underlining. Particular atten­ clear and simple enough. The very text of Potentially, any member of staff or any There are many objections which could be tion is drawn, however, to the Vice the broadsheet distributed at the end of last, student could receive such a letter. The brought against this legislation. Three of its Chancellor's refusal to say whether or not week, to which 1 have referred above, implications for the conduct of public life features are of special concern to us: it is a the Government consulted with the Uni­ demonstrates very cleariy to me the want of within the university are alarming. blatant restriction of the right to engage in versity concerning any of the provisions of value in any discussion with you. The text of A further disquieting element in the letter is non-violent demonstrations; it erodes one of the new legislation. Again, while explicitly the article about mc which appeared in the its suggestion that guilt can be incurred not the fundamental principles of justice; and it saying he is not to be construed as last issue of Semper Floreat reveals to me an only by a person's own character and acts carries harsh and excessive penalties. expressing an opinion in favour of the onus of proof provisions he does not explicitiy attitude of mind which I find appalling. 1 do but by those oi his associates and friends.' The right to demonstrate lias for long been express an opinion criticising these pro­ not say that you were involved in its From a lawyer this is a remarkable attitude. an important aspect of freedom of speech visions. And he explicitiy declines any composition, but 1 cannot doubt that you I think I speak for more people than myself and assembly but with the repeated failure comment on the further matters raised by exercise a considerable influence on the when 1 say that if the Vice Chancellor has of governments and other institutions to the letter he received, including the matter people who produced it. The false state­ anything to charge against a staff member or respond in a constructive way to dissent of harsh and excessive penalties laid down in ments in it will be exposed in letters by student he would be better advised to charge expressed through the customary modes of the new clauses. others, which have been sent to the paper it quite publicly where it can be examined democratic communication and control, the and which I hope will be printed.

Load more

  12

Copy Link