APPENDIX 5

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T

N March 1942 twenty arrests were made—four in Perth and sixteen I in Sydney—of persons alleged to be connected or associated with th e . The four arrested in Perth were brought t o trial in the Criminal Court on a charge of conspiracy to assist a publi c enemy and two of them were found guilty . The sixteen arrested in Sydney, the two acquitted in Perth and one other man subsequently arrested in Melbourne were detained for various periods by Ministerial orders given under National Security Regulations . Subsequently a Commissioner, Mr Justice Clyne,' appointed under th e National Security Regulations, inquired into some aspects of the case . He did not complete his work until 5th September 1945, after the wa r was over, and he then reported among other things that the recommenda- tion for the detention of eight of the Sydney people was not justified. The incident is of interest on several counts . It was one of the two cases in the second stage of the war in which authoritie s alleged subversive activity by an organisation . Since the entry of th e Soviet Union into the war the Communist Party had become outwardly patriotic and, although it is clear that the policies it advocated from time to time on the conduct of the war were prompted by regard for wha t best suited the foreign policy of the Soviet Union rather than by regard for Australian interests, the effect of their advocacy was not found b y the Government either to hamper the war effort or to be subversive ? In these circumstances the only organisations that attracted official attentio n were the Australia First Movement and a religious sect known as Jehovah' s Witnesses. It becomes of interest to examine the Australia First Movemen t to find whether it represented any substantial or effective body of Australia n opinion opposed to the war effort or was subject to any "foreign" directio n or influence . Second, the incident of the Australia First Movement affords the bes t opportunity in the second stage of the war for examining both the way i n which matters of national security affecting the liberty of the subject were handled and the contemporary political and popular attitudes o n such questions. Third, the incident led to allegations of injustice to individuals an d claims for personal compensation that were continued after the war ende d and the question whether they were ever fully investi gated or adequately considered by the Government is another aspect of any inquiry into th e effect that wartime experience had on Australian thinking and behaviou r on questions of civil rights . i Hon Sir Thomas Clyne . Judge, Federal Court of Bankruptcy 1942-67, Supreme Court of AC T 1943-45 . Of Melbourne ; b . 1887 . Died April 1967 . 'See The Government and the People 1939-1941, Appendix 3, The Banning of the Communis t Party", pp . 583-92 .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 719 Finally, the reputation both of the persons detained and of the person s or agencies who were associated with their detention has been the subjec t of many public statements and of some political controversy and it become s part of the task of the historian to try to set down what happened as clearly as possible so that matters of reputation may be judged fairly . First, the origins of the Australia First Movement should be examined . The central figure in its development was P . R. Stephensen. A Queenslan d Rhodes Scholar, his early activities after leavin g Oxford appear to have been mainly literary ; later, before Mr Justice Clyne, he described hi s occupation as "man of letters" . He was associated with Jack Lindsay i n the Fanfrolico Press in London in the 1920s and was co-editor with Lindsay in 1928-29 of the London Aphrodite, in which appeared prose , verse and drawings by Norman Lindsay, Hugh McCrae, Kenneth Slesso r and other who had been contributors to the magazine Vision conducted by Jack Lindsay and others in Sydney a few years earlier. Stephensen in this period tried his hand at satirical verse, fiction and literary criticism . On his return to Australia in the early 'thirties he established in Sydney a publishing firm with himself as managing director. Perhaps his best know n work is The Foundations of Culture in Australia, which he published in Sydney in February 1936. It brought together some material on Australian literature which had previously appeared in a literary magazine and h e described the book on the title page as "An Essay Towards Nationa l Self-Respect". He based a fervent assertion of the need for a distinctive Australian culture on W . C. Wentworth's prophecy of 1823 that, shoul d Britain one day decline in power, May this—thy last-born infant—then arise , To glad thy heart, and greet thy parent eyes ; And Australasia float, with flag unfuri'd , A New Britannia in another world ! About the same time, he became associated with one W . J. Miles in th e production of a monthly magazine The Publicist, the first number of which appeared in July 1936. Miles died in January 1942 before the detentio n of members of the group . Before Mr Justice Clyne, Stephensen gave evidence that Miles, a well-to-do man, was the proprietor and editor o f The Publicist until shortly before his death and that he lost about £2,00 0 a year on the venture . He had been an anti-conscriptionist speaker in th e war of 1914-18 ; he was described by Security officers as a pacifist and a rationalist .3 By the outbreak of war in 1939 The Publicist was conducting some- what erratic and disordered , more vehement in protest tha n clear in exposition, for "Australia First" . It was nationalist and consequently

a In 1915-1919 Miles had been an active supporter of Ross's Magazine, later Ross's Monthly, a socialist, anti-militarist, anti-clerical journal . In 1919 Ross was sentenced to imprisonment fo r six months on a blasphemy charge. On appeal the penalty was reduced to a fine of £50 . A s an outcome Miles organised a petition to the Commonwealth for the repeal of the blasphem y laws, without immediate result. Later Miles became honorary secretary of the New South Wale s Rationalist Press Association . See P . Coleman, Obscenity Blasphemy Sedition : Censorship i n Australia 0962), pp . 96-100 .

720 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T "opposed to so-called inter-". It was monarchical and scornfu l about democracy. Its interpretation of "pro-Australian" seemed to be that Australia should be against most other countries . It thought Australian s were fooled by propaganda from overseas and it derided and abused wha t it called "the British garrison" in Australia for not putting Australia n interests first . It was anti-Communist and anti-Jewish and seemed at times to equate Communist with Jew . It wanted to "eradicate the great colonial disease" of subservience to others. It appeared to think most people i n were fools or shysters . It was erratic, declamatory and self- contradictory. In short, it was a soap box with the tatters of "literature " and "culture" hanging to it . Early in the war The Publicist came under the notice of Publicity Censorship and in April 1940 an order to submit copy before publication was served on it . It appears to have given no further cause for concern and a report by Publicity Censorship, at the request of Military Intelligence , in March 1941, was made to the effect that there was nothing in the paper which would warrant its suppression . It transpired that Military Intelligence had placed a "contact" within the group publishing the paper and Military Intelligence thought it sa w indications of "incipient totalitarian propaganda" . The Publicity Censor' s report agreed that there were some persons associated with the paper wh o would "repay time spent in watching" . There were occasional articles that might be described as friendly to Japan and, as the paper also published serially a long extract fro m Hitler's writing, it might be thought that it was also sympathetic to him . Mr Justice Clyne's report referred to various pro-Japanese utterance s ascribed to Stephensen himself . It should be remarked that these all belonge d to a period before Japan entered the war and at a period when pro - Japanese sentiment was perhaps a corollary to anti-Russian and anti - Communist thought . One detects, too, the influence of the issues raised i n Australia affecting Britain and Japan in 1936, during the trade diversio n policy. The Publicist, read at a distance of some years, seems nationalistic, fascistic and rather disordered but not disloyal. During 1940 The Publicist had started to advertise for men to com- municate with it "with a view to the formation of an Australia-Firs t Political Party after the war", and in the number for May 1940 publishe d "Fifty Points of Policy for an Australia-First Party After the War" . Thes e were elaborated in an article by Stephensen in the number for Augus t 1941, and the 50 points and the elaboration of them were reprinted i n a pamphlet in the same month . This pamphlet, Fifty Points for Australia, appears to be directed to the "New Order" to be established after the wa r rather than to anything related to the conduct of the war. During that period there was a good deal of discussion both overseas and in Australi a about post-war reconstruction and Allied war aims and at least half-a- dozen other printed discussions on the same subject were current in Australia . Some of the 50 points were clearly "" in the popular

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 721 contemporary meaning of the term . The pamphlet advocated "national " forms of socialism as opposed to the "international" socialism of Russia n Communists or Marxists ; but it limited the field of socialism to thos e monopolies which are "too great to be entrusted to private enterprise" , and elsewhere it advocated "private ownership against government en- croachment" and "competition against monopoly" . It advocated "stron g government", "leadership" and "authority" and was against "anarchy", "", "vacillation", "parliamentary careerism" and "demagogo- cracy". It stressed the need for "national unity" against "sectional dis- unity" and urged the "dissolution of all existing sectional political partie s . . . and the creation of a new political structure to represent true Nationa l Unity and Australian Community Oneness . . . ." It believed that th e Government should "control" and "regulate" the "sectional propagand a possessed by plutocrats and bureaucrats who control wireless broadcastin g stations and newspapers" . It thought that journalists should be "compelle d to act with a sense of public responsibility" . It spoke of the need fo r "discipline" . It deplored sentimental sympathy for criminals . It upheld "Aryanism" and was against "Semitism" . It was strongly anti-Communist . The dominant note, however, was the assertion of an Australian national - ism . Perhaps the oddest contradiction in the pamphlet was the criticism of preferential and discriminatory tariffs and this is the only point in th e pamphlet that by the utmost stretching might be regarded as puttin g forward a thesis favourable to the Japanese . If in places the pamphlet might be thought to be anti-British it could equally be argued that it was anti - foreign. The Australia First Movement was formed in October 1941 . The Commissioner, Mr Justice Clyne, recorded the events leading to it s formation as follows : It appears from the evidence that the formation of the organisation known as th e Australia First Movement came about in the following manner . In or about October 1941, a suggestion was made by some persons who were members of an associatio n called the Women's Guild of Empire, which at the time was in abeyance, that ther e should be a merger of members of the Guild of Empire and of members of a grou p interested in a journal called The Publicist to form a new Movement. A ten-point manifesto was drawn up by P . R . Stephensen and this was intended to be the basi s of the merger of the two groups . After a preliminary meeting P . R . Stephensen drafted a constitution and rules for the proposed Movement, and at another meeting o n 20th October 1941, at which ten persons were present, the draft constitution wa s adopted. P . R . Stephensen said the Movement was a democratically elected organisa- tion and he was democratically elected President ? At this meeting L . K. Cahill and Adela Pankhurst Walsh were appointe d organisers of the Movement and the ten-point manifesto was approved . Among the points of this manifesto were the following : (a) In view of the extreme gravity of the military situation abroad, and o f the political situation at home, an Australia First Movement has been founde d

+Parliamentary Paper, No . 46, 1945-16, Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Detention of Certain Me,nhery of the "Australia First Movement" Group—Report of Commissioner (His Honour Mr Justice Clyne) .

722 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T in Sydney to arouse public opinion to the need of protecting Australia's vital interests during the coming post-war period . (b) Affirming loyalty to the King and upholding established authority, law an d order, the Australia First Movement calls upon all Australians to work for unity in internal policies and for Australian independence in external affairs . (c) The Australia First Movement is opposed to sectional political parties an d factions and urges the subordination of sectional and factional interests to th e welfare of Australia First. (d) The Australia First Movement will advocate, after the present war ends, a n independent foreign policy for Australia, including the unrestricted right o f the Australian Government to make war or peace at its own choice, to enter separately into agreements or treaties with any foreign powers, and to appoin t Australian diplomatic representatives to any foreign countries .% Previously the persons interested in The Publicist had been holding "regular but informal" meetin gs, calling themselves the Yabba Club . The meetings were open to any persons willing to attend . Military Intelligence had intro- duced its own "contact" into this group and received regular reports o n what was said. These reports, which were later accepted by the Commis- sioner as "substantially true and accurate", although said to be untrue b y members of the group, included views "calculated to foster feelings of hostility to Britain and to cause disaffection in Australia" . Such views, expressed before October 1941, do not appear to hav e any direct bearing on the official action taken in March 1942 . At the time when they were made and in the circumstances then existing i t would appear that Military Intelligence did not itself regard them a s sufficiently serious to warrant any action by itself or to be worth bringing under the notice of higher authority . They may have had some effect, however, in influencing the opinions of Military Intelligence about th e persons concerned when different circumstances arose . How significant was the Australia First Movement? At this distanc e it seems to have been neither coherent nor purposeful . It was certainly not representative, well organised or possessed of much substance . According to its register of members, 65 persons became members . "The persons wh o became members of the Australia First Movement were, however, a strangely assorted set, some of whom were prone to adopt extreme opinion s on any subject, but I am convinced," wrote the Commissioner, "tha t many of them had different views as to the objects of the Movement, an d I am also convinced that the aims of the Movement as expressed b y some members did not meet with the approval of other members ."6 To further its objects the Movement arranged public meetings. Each of the meetings was attended by a shorthand writer from "Military Polic e Intelligence Section", a branch of the police tha t cooperated with Army Intelligence, and a detailed report was made o f everything that was said and done . Meetings were held weekly at the Australia Hall, Elizabeth Street, Sydney, from 5th November to 17t h December . Police estimates of the audiences ranged from "fewer tha n

Clyne report, p . 4 . Clyne report, p . 5 .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 723 100" to 200. At the meeting on 17th December Stephensen announce d that the next meeting would be on 7th January . There had been many interjections at some of the November meetings but it was not until the meeting on 17th December that the police reported "uproar". The meetings were resumed on 7th January in the Adyar Hall, Bligh Street. Stephensen announced that Adela Pankhurst Walsh had resigne d from the Movement . The police reported that the meeting was noisy a t question time, but that no police action was warranted ; about 100 attended . On 27th January an "inquiry officer" who had joined the Movement reported to the Commonwealth Investigation Branch a members' con- ference that he had attended on the 24th . Stephensen had said that the total number of members was 60. The estimated loss through publi c meetings was £2 2s . The inquiry officer reported that "enthusiasm wa s lacking and a feeling of anxiety as to the Movement's slow progress wa s very noticeable". In February a minute written on 13th December by the Solicitor-General , Sir George Knowles, came before Dr Evatt . There is no indication o f the reason for the delay . The minute read :

Further police reports have come to hand regarding the meetings held by the Australia First Movement on 5th, 12th and 19th November in the Australia Hall , Sydney, being the first three meetings of the series of seven meetings proposed to b e held by the Movement . The latest Police Report states that the Movement "is the genesis of a Fifth Column of a most virulent kind and, even though at present it does not appear t o have a large following, there are definite signs of increasing interest" . P . R . Stephensen, the sponsor of the Movement, stated, at the meeting held on 19th November, that its membership was less than 100 . If that is so it appear s remarkable that such a small Movement can hire halls, publish printed manifestos , pamphlets, etc . It has been suggested that Stephensen ' s publications have bee n financed from Nazi and Japanese sources . Inquiries were made some years ago as to the source from which Stephense n obtained finance to publish The Publicist and it was then ascertained that a Mr W . J . Miles was responsible and that the publication was costing him £4,00 0 per annum . Possibly, the Australia First Movement is being financed from the same source . There is nothing new in the idea of forming a non-party Party to advocate Australia First. It is noted that the leaders of the Movement, Stephensen, Cahill and Mr s Adela Walsh, are ex-Communists . Stephensen may be an idealist but there is reaso n to doubt the sincerity of Cahill and, particularly, of Mrs Walsh who, incidentally, with her husband, Tom, visited Japan shortly after the outbreak of the present war . Japan's entry into the war has altered the whole situation and, possibly, th e Australia First Movement will now die a natural death . At the meeting held on 19th November, Stephensen made the following statement in reply to a question : "Australia is not at war with Japan, thank goodness . I hope she never wil l be, but I do want to make this clear, that if Australia were to be involved i n a war with Japan and dragged into it by Britain and U .S .A., then it would b e my duty to fight against Japan, but, so long as there is peace between th e two countries, I am going to speak for peace. " When the reports of the meetings held since Japan entered the war come to hand, it will be possible to ascertain whether Stephenson has adopted a changed attitud e

r Sir George Knowles, CBE. Solicitor-General 1932-46 ; Aust High Commissioner to South Africa 194647 . B . Brisbane, 14 Mar 1882 . Died 22 Nov 1947 .

724 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T towards Pacific problems. Until then, it does not appear desirable to take any action with respect to the Australia First Movement. This minute went to the Attorney-General with the following memo-

randum from the Assistant Secretary, Mr Castieau : 8 Since the attached minute was written, the international situation has change d the whole outlook of the promoters of the Australia First Movement . Reports of recent meetings show that P. R. Stephensen and L. K. Cahill are now exceedingly patriotic . In fact, Cahill has joined the A.I.F. and the pro-Japanese Mrs Adela Walsh has resigned from the Movement . The Director, Investigation Branch, has reported that Stephenson is rapidl y losing heart in the Movement which was launched at a most inopportune time and at no time had even one hundred members . I recommend that the speeches at future meetings (if any) be not reported and that no further action towards declaring the Movement under the Nationa l Security (Subversive Associations) Regulations be taken° On 12th February this recommendation reached Evatt who wrote o n it: "Continue reports as at present. H .V.E." The Director of the Investigation Branch (of the Attorney-General' s Department) was informed of this decision and the Premier of Ne w South Wales was told of the Attorney-General's wish ; but Knowles told the Director that, if the State Police continued to report future meetings , it did not seem necessary for the speeches to be reported in full by th e Investigation Branch, as had been done at least on some occasions hitherto . Also on 12th February the Sydney "Military Police Intelligence Section " recommended to the Commissioner of Police that the Movement shoul d be declared unlawful by the Commonwealth authorities . Thus, just when Commonwealth law authorities, on information supplied by their Investiga- tion Branch, were advising that the Movement's leaders were "exceedingl y patriotic", the police who were engaged (side by side with a group o f Army officers) on security work were advising that the Movement b e declared unlawful . In view of the fact that responsibility for the eventua l arrest of members of the Movement was taken by the Military Intelligenc e officers working with the "Military Police Intelligence Section" of Ne w South Wales, it may be that this proposal to declare the Movemen t unlawful originated with them . There is no indication that the police an d Army officers advising the Commissioner of Police in Sydney had an y knowledge of any pronouncement by the Movement's leaders that was not available also to the Investigation Branch . There was no public meeting of the Movement between 7th Januar y and 5th February, when 130 were present . Edward Cory de la Roche Mosey and Stephensen spoke along the usual lines . A police shorthand writer's note of the speeches was sent to the Crown Solicitor, Canberra , on the 12th by the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, who advised tha t he did not think that either speech was in contravention of Regulation _ _et s J. G. B . Castieau, CBE . Asst Secretary and Asst Parity Draughtsman, Attorney-General's Dept 1939-46 ; Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator 1946-55 . B . Prahran, Vic, 17 Sep 1892 . Died 2 Oct 1963 . , Attorney-General's Department, file W4888 . THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 725 42(1)(a) of the National Security (General) Regulations and did not think that "any other provision of the legislation is appropriate". The Crown Solicitor, Mr Whitlam,' sent this to Knowles on the 16th an d concurred in the opinion . On 14th February Stephensen sent a circular to members urging them to get busy and informin g them that a new series of public meetings woul d begin in the Adyar Hall on 19th February. About 150 attended that night , including members of the State police and of the Commonwealth Investiga- tion Branch and (according to the Branch's "inquiry officer") a number of Communists and waterside workers . Valentine Crowley was chairman of the meeting. He paid tribute to W. J . Miles who had died in January . Miles, he said, was a very wonderfu l man. He had started the Australia First Movement in the last war . He had "poured out his wealth and his energy and his thought and time t o creating in this Australia a knowledge and a love and a willingness t o make sacrifices for this place as a place and not as an unimportant par t of another place" . The logical successor to the great Miles was P . R. Stephensen. Crowley called on Masey to speak on . An interjector shouted that the Movement was a fascist organisation . There was a scuffle which rapidly developed into a serious brawl . Blows were exchanged, chairs overturned . A group of men rushed the platform . By the time the arrival of uniformed police had stopped the brawl Stephen- sen's face was covered with blood and there were many black eyes and cu t faces. Stephensen said that the meeting would continue . After interjectors had prevented Stephensen from speaking for some minutes about half th e audience walked out. Thereupon Stephensen spoke for about an hour . The reporter for the Investigation Branch wrote : Mr Stephensen, his face covered with blood and one of his eyes looking angry i n more ways than one proceeded with his address in what developed into an awe - stricken silence . Only at the conclusion of his remarkable (under the circumstances ) oration, did the people cheer . It was a good burst of applause, which may hav e been attributed to the ma n ' s personal physical and mental endurance, or otherwise . To a mere onlooker who appreciated the present national position, the whol e of the proceedings seemed unnecessary and in bad taste . In its report of the meeting, which occupied about 10 inches of a singl e column, the Sydney Morning Herald said that Stephensen had two teeth knocked out and had been kicked while he was held down by two men . After the meeting Stephensen had said that members of his Movemen t were patriotic Australians and would not be stopped by bashers . The report of the meeting by the officer of the Commonwealth Investiga- tion Branch contains some 10,000 words mostly comprising a verbatim not e of Stephensen's speech. In the copy on the file of the Attorney-General' s Department s some remarks by Stephensen are marked in blue pencil . They are : "[It is unreasonable to expect] one Ally to hang back while

'H . F. E . Whitlam. Crown Solicitor 1936-48 . Of Canberra; b. Prahran, Vic, 3 Apr 1884 . Died 8 Dec 1961 . 9 File W4888, Australia First Movement, Part II .

726 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T the other does the fighting ." "[Australia declared war] on Japan for the purpose of helping Britain and the United States ." "Instead of devotin g so much energy to black-out and air raid precautions over Sydney, let u s devote our energy to recalling 10,000 airmen to this country ." "We will not have a lot of Yankee boloney put over here to the effect that the Americans are coming here to protect us . They are coming here for their own sake." "George Washington and his people made giant strides whe n they became independent." "[The Australia First Movement is the begin- ning of] idea, Australian Independence . I do not suggest that it should do anything in a manner that is ill-judged, certainly not anythin g to embarrass the Government of the country at a time of emergency o r of war." K. P. Bath, a citizen of some standing who was present in the audience , saw the demonstration "as an outrage against lawful public assembly an d freedom of expression within the law" and, as a protest, he consented t o take the chair at a public meeting to be held at Manly on 5th March . This appears to have been his only association with the Movement bu t it subsequently was the ground for his arrest . When sending the report of the meeting of 19th February to Knowle s the Director of the Investigation Branch recommended that the activitie s of the organisation should be restricted . On 4th March the Movemen t advertised in the press the meeting to be held at the Arcadia Theatre , Manly, next evening. Knowles directed the attention of Evatt to the advertisement, suggested that the control of public meetings was a matte r for the "civil and police authorities", but added that if they did not tak e action perhaps the Commonwealth would consider the exercise of power s to prohibit a meeting under National Security (General) Regulations , No. 44(2) . Evatt signed an order under this regulation and it was hurrie d to Sydney. On the 7th, however, the New South Wales Commissione r of Police, Mr MacKay ; wrote to Knowles returning Evatt's directio n prohibiting the meeting and explaining that he had simply informe d Stephensen that the meeting was banned on the ground that it might cause a breach of the peace ; and Stephensen had placed a notice on the door of the theatre to that effect . About 200 people turned up but they left quietly. An officer of the Investigation Branch reported that the leader of the Manly Communists "and apparently a number of his friends" wer e among those who arrived for the meeting . It is a matter for nice disputation whether, in such circumstances, th e responsibility of authority is to protect a peaceful and lawful assembl y from being disturbed by persons holding contrary views or whether it s responsibility is to avoid public disorder by prohibiting the assembly o r persuading its sponsors to cancel it. In normal times the weight of opinion would certainly be on the side of protecting a lawful assembly . The activities of the Australia First Movement were still lawful . The point , although it was often underlined by the aggrieved persons associated with

3W . I . MacKay. Commissioner of Police, NSW, 1935-48, Commonwealth Director-General o f Security 1942. B . Scotland, 28 Nov 1885 . Died 22 Ian 1948 .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 727 the Movement, loses most of its effect in the light of the statement b y Mr Justice Clyne that, although the police intervened, the decision not to hold the meeting had the "concurrence" of Stephensen . Meanwhile in the Senate on 6th March in reply to a question by Senato r Collett it had been stated on behalf of the Attorney-General that th e Movement's activities had been closely watched and a shorthand note taken of all proceedings . "Appropriate action has been and will be taken to restrict or prohibit any of the activities of this organisation or of any of its members which are deemed detrimental to national security." The members of the executive of the Movement were named . On 12th March Knowles informed MacKay that "as a result of actio n taken earlier this week, the true objects and bona fides of the Movemen t will be ascertained" . Thereafter the question of banning the organisation entirely or prohibiting all future meetings would be considered . The "action taken earlier this week" had been the detaining of the 16 people and the searching of their homes on 10th March . During the period of activity through public meetings, the Australi a First Movement was also preparing a draft manifesto . As finally approve d and published, the manifesto does not appear to be open to securit y objection, nor does the advocacy by some members of the "right" t o make a separate peace advance any thesis different from what Dr Evat t himself would have argued was within the constitutional powers o f Australia. In his remarks on Stephensen in his report the only reference b y Mr Justice Clyne to a separate peace was by way of a quotation fro m a letter written by Stephensen in January : "As far as Australia is concerne d I expect to see opinions growing in favour of (1) Recall of the A .I .F., (2) Independence from Britain, (3) Separate peace with Japan . It woul d be premature to advocate this third point at present, but I believe the nettle will have to be grasped sooner or later by responsible leaders of the Australian community ."' During this period Intelligence officers had continued to keep unde r observation persons associated with the Movement and to intercept and examine their correspondence. Apparently as the result of this interception of correspondence, the interest of Military Intelligence was aroused i n certain persons in who, apparently on their own initia- tive, had written to Miles and Stephensen to obtain information about the Movement . The Intelligence Section then "caused a man named Thomas" to make investigations in Western Australia . On the face of it , there does seem to be some reason for suspecting that Military Intelligenc e had not been able to find sufficient ground for a round-up of the Australi a First people in Sydney as a risk to security and hopefully followed up th e

*Report, pp. 17-18 . Questioned before Clyne as to whether there was evidence that the Australi a First people wanted to make a separate peace with Japan, Captain F . B . Blood, who was i n charge of investigations into the Movement on behalf of Military Intelligence, said that he wa s sure that there were reports to that effect; that they would be reports from people within the Movement . In reply to a question as to who within the Movement had reported that an y one of the internees favoured a separate peace with Japan at any time, Blood refused to answer and Clyne disallowed the question, evidently on security grounds .

728 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T lead in Western Australia. It would also appear that F. J . Thomas, to whom this task was allotted, did more than investigate ; Clyne, after recording the suggestion made in Court that the four persons in Pert h were the "victims of the investigator", said that he was "prepared to believe that Thomas was not a passive investigator" . At the subsequent police court case Frederick James Thomas describe d himself in evidence as an investigator with the Special Branch of th e C.I.B . attached to Military Intelli gence. Under cross-examination he revealed that he had long been a rolling stone . He said that he had joined "the department" about a year before . About two years ago h e had joined the Communist Party. Later in the cross-examination Thomas said that he had consulted Detective-Sergeant G . R. Richards during an adjournment and Richards had advised him to tell the truth, which wa s that he had joined the Communist Party on Richards's instructions, for the purpose of getting secret information for the police . The four people arrested in Perth on 9th March—Laurence Frederic k Bullock, Nancy Rachel Krakouer, Edward Cunningham Quicke an d Charles Leonard Albert Williams—were arrested by a detective of th e Criminal Investigation Branch under Regulation 79 of the National Security Regulations . On 31st March the War Cabinet decided that they should be prosecuted on an at officio indictment before the High Court. Later, however, after considering advice by counsel, it was decided t o lay an information in the police court and have the four people committed for trial. The charge against the four was that they had "conspired together to assist within the Commonwealth of Australia a public enemy, to wit , the armed forces of Japan contrary to Section 86 of the Crimes Act" . Clyne records the events subsequent to the arrests in Perth as follows : When Bullock and the others were arrested, a message was at once sent by th e Military Command, Perth, to Eastern Command, setting out the above informatio n and adding "P. R . Stephensen, your command named by Quicke as leader of Move- ment, your command. Suggest urgent action A .H.Q . and all other commands an d districts have been informed .'° On the eve of the arrests in Sydney there had been a change in th e security organisation. From 1941 onwards surveillance of possibly sub- versive organisations and individuals appears to have been a responsibilit y of four groups : the Investigation Branch of the Attorney-General's Depart- ment ; officers of Military Intelligence ; the policemen of the "Militar y Police Intelligence Section" working in close collaboration with the Militar y Intelligence officers ; and military officers who formed State branches of a Security Service described by an Intelligence officer at the Clyne inquir y as a body set up under the Attorney-General but advisory to the Army . The last-mentioned officers appear to have communicated with the Director of Security, Colonel Longfield Lloyd, g in Canberra but at this stage their _ nee_ Report, p . 7 . 0 Lt-Col E. E . Longfield Lloyd, MC, VD . (1st AIF : 1 nn .) Aust Govt Commissioner Japa n 1935—10 ; Director, Commonwealth Security Service 1941-45, Director-General 1945-49 ; Director , Commonwealth Investigation Service 1944-52 . E . Sydney, 13 Sep 1890 . Died 18 Jul 1957 .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 729 communications, if any, concerning the Australia First Movement do no t appear to have reached the permanent head of the Attorney-General' s department. On 8th March the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales, MacKay , was appointed Commonwealth Director-General of Security . That day MacKay informed the Chiefs of Staff that the "new Security Service" would be under the direction of the Attorney-General but during hi s absence—Evatt left Australia on 9th March—would function under th e control of the Minister for the Army . After a conference at Police Headquarters, Sydney, between New Sout h Wales police officers and Military Intelligence officers in the early hour s of the morning of 10th March, a list of names was made and, on th e responsibility of the Chief Staff Officer in charge of Intelligence, Eastern Command, 16 persons were arrested, their premises searched and docu- ments seized. This action was reported on 13th March to Army Head - quarters, Melbourne, with a request that the execution of Ministeria l warrants under Regulation 26 of the National Security (General) Regula- tions be treated as one of extreme urgency . If one assumes that the investigation made in Western Australia by Thomas had been made in a detached way and without any continuin g exchange of information or instructions between Perth and Sydney durin g the investigation, it would appear that the decision to make the arrest s in Sydney was based solely on a statement by Ouicke naming Stephense n as "leader of Movement", coupled with the dossiers that Military Intelli- gence had previously compiled and which hitherto they had found insuffi- cient to justify the arrest of anyone . If Ouicke's identification of Stephensen as "leader of Movement" meant only that he was leader of the Australi a First Movement in Sydney that was a fact that had been publicly known since the foundation of the Movement and constituted no new evidence of any kind. If it was interpreted to mean that Stephensen was leader o f the conspiracy in Perth, or that he was aware of it, then it is strange tha t neither then nor later was any evidence produced in support of that allega- tion . Clyne states : "Though there were, as I have said, grounds for suspecting some relation between the Western Australians and some mem- bers of the Movement in Sydney, the members of the Movement establishe d in Sydney were completely unaware of the conspiracy alleged against the persons arrested in Western Australia ."' In another place : "They had in their possession dossiers relating to the persons arrested, and thoug h they had strong reasons for suspecting some relationship between th e persons detained in Western Australia and some members of the Move- ment in Sydney, a little more investigation would have shown that som e of the persons arrested had never heard of Bullock or any of his associates ." Why then were the Sydney people arrested after 9th March but not arrested in the week before 9th March? Their own activities or beliefs ha d not changed in that week and in fact the latest "activity" recorded wa s

*Report, p. 8

730 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T Stephensen's concurrence in an official decision that another public meeting of the Movement should not be held. There was no evidence to connect them with Perth events. All that had changed was that a somewhat craz y plot by some obscure persons in another part of Australia had eithe r produced in Military Intelligence a state of mind in which arrests whic h had previously not been thought necessary now became urgent, or it pro- duced the public circumstances in which arrests which they would hav e liked to make but could not attempt could now be made successfully. The recommendation for the detention of the 16 arrested persons wa s placed before the Minister for the Army and Ministerial warrants, date d 20th March 1942, were issued under Regulation 26 . Subsequently another member of the Movement living in Melbourne was arrested on 7th Ma y and detained under an order made on 30th April . Before Clyne, Francis Bindon Blood, a solicitor who was an office r attached to Military Intelligence at Police Headquarters, Sydney, from 1940 to 1942, said that he was in charge of investigation into The Publicist and the Australia First Movement. In reply to the question why he agreed to the detention of the 16 people Blood said : The first principle of Security, as it was taught to us . . . was that, if an organisa - tion was in existence and if there was evidence that it was subversive or inimica l to the war effort, action should be taken to break up that organisation before it could actively carry through its intentions ; and the most effective manner of breaking up an organisation is to take into custody the executive, the committe e and those most closely and most actively associated with the organisation. . . . It was the principle discussed by me with Colonel Powell and Captain Newman betwee n December 1941 and March 1942 in relation to "Australia First". . . . The telegram was the final matter. In the Perth Police Court on 13th March Bullock, Krakouer, Quicke and Williams were committed for trial in the Criminal Court. The trial opened on 2nd June . The case for the prosecution rested mainly on the evidence of Thomas . Thomas said that on instructions from the detective-sergeant in charge o f the Special Bureau of the Criminal Investigation Branch, Perth, in Februar y 1942 he began an inquiry into the Australia First Movement in Wester n Australia . He assumed the name Frederick Karl Hardt and gained th e acquaintance of Krakouer and through her of Bullock, who said that h e was the organiser of the Australia First Movement in Western Australia , and was an "out-and-out national socialist" . Bullock's dwelling had been raided by the police, who had seized papers and books . He had been in touch with the German propaganda chief in North America, he said . Bullock introduced Thomas to Quicke and at a meeting attended by thes e three and Krakouer in an hotel room on 21st February an "Australia Firs t Party" was formed with Bullock as leader and Krakouer as secretary. Bullock told the meeting that they would have to use sabotage to hel p the Japanese and delegated himself and Quicke to obtain gelignite and Thomas small arms . Bullock said that a proclamation must be drawn u p to be broadcast when the Japanese occupied the country . Next day

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 73 1 Bullock introduced Williams to Thomas as an expert in the use of explosives and Williams described the measures necessary for blowing u p the Ford Motor Works at Cottesloe, and discussed other plans fo r sabotage and assassination . At a meeting on 27th February the fou r people met and Bullock read the proclamation, which was discussed . Next day Bullock gave Thomas the typed proclamation . Thomas took it to th e police who photographed it . Thomas then returned it to Bullock . The proclamation was addressed to the "Men and Women of Australia" an d announced a new Government introducing a new system based on a negotiated peace with Japan; henceforth the destiny of Australia woul d be guided by the slogan of Australia First which was the name of th e political organisation introducing the National Socialist system . Among other policies, it proclaimed the removal of Jews from all governmen t positions or any place of authority and confiscation of their property an d their internment. Persons opposed to the National Socialist system woul d be summarily shot. The Australian nation was ordered to lay down its arms . The defence maintained that it was all a police frame-up . Thomas manufactured evidence to create an offence . Nearly all the matter in th e proclamation was originated by Thomas . Bullock had typed it as a favour to Thomas, whom he and the others regarded as either a kind of madma n or a police agent . A jury on 23rd June found Bullock and William s guilty and Krakouer and Quicke not guilty, and made a recommendatio n for mercy in the case of Williams but did not state any grounds . Bullock was sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard labour and William s to two years . The two men made an unsuccessful application to th e Court of Criminal Appeal. Delivering judgment in that court Mr Justice Dwyer' said that there was ample evidence to convict all four; it was possible that the jury thought that Krakouer and Quicke were no t "mentally responsible" for the conspiratorial agreement and did not under - stand it. The verdict of the Criminal Court was based on the evidenc e presented. The circumstances surrounding the events which were describe d in that evidence leave ground for considerable scepticism whether ther e ever was any substantial threat to security in the alleged conspiracy . Clyne comments: "It is difficult to imagine what moved these puny conspirator s to such ambitious and dangerous designs ." The persons detained in Sydney were firmly convinced and have publicly stated that the incident was a plot contrived at the instigation of Evatt to catch them . On 14th April, more than a month after the detention of the sixtee n in Sydney, Knowles sent a memorandum to Whitlam, concurring in Whitlam's view expressed on 16th February, that the speeches referred to did not contravene Regulation 42(1) (a) and asking him to conside r whether any of the later matter in the file appeared to indicate a contraven- tion of the law. Whitlam replied on the 16th: I have perused the police report and notes of the speech by P . R . Stephensen o f 19th February and the later communications, circulars and notices contained in th e

"Hon Sir John Dwyer, KCMG . Justice, Supreme Court of WA 1929-46, Chief Justice 1946-59 . B . 1880. Died 25 Aug 1966 .

732 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T

file . In my opinion, there is nothing in any of that matter which appears to indicat e any contravention by Stephensen of any regulation made under the National Securit y Act or of any other Commonwealth law . On 21st May the Solicitor-General informed the Minister for the Arm y that 12 of the 16 internees had asked for leave to object to an "Advisory Committee" against their internment . One of the 12, Stephensen, had sinc e withdrawn his application in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had stated in Parliament that he was to be publicly charged in accordanc e with the ordinary processes of the law . Of the other 11, eight intended to proceed with their applications and one of the four who had no t "given notice" of intention to apply had "intimated" that he intended t o apply. The remaining six, their counsel stated, when called before th e committee would say that they did not intend to go on with any applica- tion for leave to appeal as they did not recognise the jurisdiction of th e Advisory Committee. There was so much typing to be done-3,00 0 pages—that the Military Police Intelligence Branch would not have it ready for another week . Knowles considered that the Prime Minister's statement to whic h Stephensen referred was one that included the words : "The whole pro- cesses of the law will be invoked ; the civil authority will be directed t o formulate charges on the evidence that is available . I agree . . . that there ought to be no prejudicing of the fair trial of these people, an d that they ought to be given every opportunity to establish their innocence , if they are innocent ."9 The next paper on the file is an undated and unsigned and unaddresse d minute pinned to a cutting from Hansard of 28th May with the words i n italics underlined : Mr Beasley, replying to Mr Calwell, "The position o f other persons who may be involved with the Australia First Movement is a matter that comes within the province not of myself, but of Arm y Intelligence . In those circumstances I am not able to express an opinio n upon the matter." The minute continued :

On 27th March 1942, the Prime Minister stated in the House : "The Australia First Movement has been under the constant observation of Military Intelligence for several months. The previous Government had it unde r observation . As the result of that observation, twenty persons concerning who m a prima facie case has been established by Military Intelligence have bee n interned . I do not know if any more persons will he arrested . The whol e processes of the law will be invoked ; the civil authority will he directed t o formulate charges on the evidence that is available . I agree with the Honourabl e Member for Bourke (Mr Blackburn) that there ought to be no prejudicing o f the fair trial of these people and that they ought to be given every opportunit y to establish their innocence . " The only persons against whom a prima facie case for prosecution could b e made out were the four Western Australians who have now been committe d for trial . It may be embarrassing for the Minister for the Army to make the Statemen t proposed by this Department in view of the Statement made by the Attorney-Genera l (Dr Evatt) in connexion with the Ratliff and Thomas case (see S .M .H . 17 .7 .41) .

Commonwealth Debates, Vol 170, p . 521 .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 73 3

"Labour will not tolerate any attempt to imperil the security of this country . But we think that where Australian citizens are alleged to be guilty they shoul d be prosecuted in the ordinary course and charged with some specific offence . . . . The men are detained on the fiat of the Minister . They are not charged with any offence. They are not entitled to an open trial . They have no right to confront witnesses called against them . The so-called Appeal Tribunals hav e the right to hear witnesses behind their backs . In all these respects, th e ordinary course of justice is completely forgotten . " Ratliff and Thomas were ultimately released on giving the following undertaking : "I believe that it is the duty of all Australian citizens to work for nationa l unity and a maximum war effort to secure victory over and Fascis m as early as possible . I undertake to assist in the development of this duty and I will refrai n from all acts which might impede the war effort in any way and I will d o all in my power as an individual to ensure the speedy conclusion of the wa r with victory for the British Commonwealth of Nations and her Allies . " Incidentally there are 167 Australians in internment camps and if Stephensen & Co . are released without going before an Advisory Committee, an awkward preceden t will be created . The Prime Minister states that the people should be given every opportunity to establish their innocence and the Attorney-General stated that people detained shoul d be prosecuted in the ordinary course and charged with a specific offence . This is apparently not possible in the present case and the question arises as to whether, in view of the Attorney-General' s unqualified statement in the Ratliff and Thomas case, the same considerations should apply in this case . I suggest that the Minister for the Army should not make any statement unti l the Attorney-General is consulted by cablegram .

On 27th May the following printed leaflet was issued : NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Memorandum to subscribers of "THE PUBLICIST" Subscribers to "The Publicist" are hereby notified that this monthly newspaper , which is registered under the Newspapers Act, has temporarily suspended publicatio n since 1st March 1942 . Its three proprietors, including the Editor, were interned o n 10th March 1942, by order of the Minister for the Army . They were interned i n company with thirteen other Australian-born men, all residents of New Sout h Wales, among whom are several writers who have regularly or occasionally contri- buted articles to "The Publicist" . In these circumstances normal monthly publicatio n could not be maintained. Arrangements will be made in due course, either to resum e publication, or to refund unused subscriptions . Since it was established in July 1936, "The Publicist" has strictly conformed wit h requirements of the law . All its contents since May 1940 have been submitted to , and passed by, the Official Censor appointed by the Commonwealth Government. No charge has been preferred against its proprietors, or against any of the sixtee n men interned in New South Wales . None of these sixteen men has had any association with four persons in Western Australia who have been charged wit h conspiracy to assist the enemy. These four accused persons were not at any tim e members of, or connected in any way with the organisation, established in Sydne y in October 1941, which was named "The Australia First Movement" . Relying on justice, and seeking release and exoneration, the proprietors of "Th e Publicist " request you to communicate immediately, by telegram, letter, and persona l interview with Ministers of the Crown, Members of Parliament, and editors of news - papers, to call for a full inquiry into the internment of these sixteen men in Ne w South Wales ; to press for their release and exoneration ; and to ask for a lifting of

734 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T

the censorship instruction which has prevented their side of the case from being state d in newspapers . Interned now for almost three months without trial, despite allegations of th e most serious nature which were made against them in Parliament on 26th March , these sixteen men of "The Publicist" and of "The Australia First Movement" in New South Wales declare that they are entirely innocent of any conspiracy or illegal activity whatsoever . They rely now on an awakened public opinion to protec t their rights as Australian-born citizens to a fair and speedy trial, or to release and exculpation by proper processes of law . Issued b y "AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT", Room 45, Fourth Floor, 26 O'Connell Street, Sydney . 27th May 1942 . A copy of this leaflet was sent to Mr B . H. Corser, M.P., by Stephensen' s father at whose request Corser sent it on to the Prime Minister . In the Communist paper Tribune of 29th April the names of 15 of th e internees were published. Most of the names were mis-spelt, which seems to indicate that they had been conveyed to the Tribune orally . Of the 16 detained in Sydney three—Keith Percival Bath, John Thomas Kirtley and Harley Matthews—were not members of the Movement . As mentioned, eight men appealed against internment and their appeal s were heard before an "Advisory Committee" or a "Special Committee" . Five of these—Bath, Clarence Crowley, Cecil Walter Salier, Walte r Frederick Tinker-Giles and Martin Francis Watts—were released in Augus t 1942. Edward Cory de la Roche Masey and Gordon Thomas Rice were released in October 1942 and (who had been detained in Melbourne) was released in December 1942 . Five men appealed and then withdrew their appeals, generally on the ground that they did not wish to be tried by a secret tribunal . Four of these—Valentine Crowley , Clive Kirkwood Downe, Sydney Benjamin Hooper and Eric Dudle y Stephensen (brother of P. R. Stephensen)—were released on the recom- mendation of committees in September 1942 and one, Leslie Kevin Cahill, in February 1944. Four did not appeal. Of these Edmund John Arnold was released in September 1942, briefly re-interned and released again in October ; Matthews was released in September ; John Thomas Kirtley was release d in February 1944; Percy Reginald Stephensen was still in internment i n May 1945 when the Clyne inquiry was completed . He was released in September 1945, the month in which Clyne completed his report . Of the four who were tried in Perth, Nancy Rachel Krakouer wa s released at the end of 1944, but the others were still in internment whe n the inquiry ended . It appears that all who were released were subject to restrictions a t least for a time. We shall now examine the question whether the safeguards introduce d to protect the rights of the individual during the term of the previou s Government were observed . One of these safeguards was a requiremen t by War Cabinet in the Menzies Government that the Minister for the

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 73 5 Army before issuing an order for the detention of a person must b e satisfied that the person concerned had been engaged in subversive activitie s or was otherwise engaged in activities contrary to the interests of nationa l security. Mere membership of a subversive association or the professio n of a political doctrine were not in themselves considered as sufficien t evidence. This rule laid down by the Menzies War Cabinet does no t appear to have been applied in this case . Some of the orders for detention , if not all, seem to have relied solely on the allegation that the arrested person had been associated with the Australia First Movement and no t on any evidence concerning subversive activities by the person himself . At this point, with due respect to the learned judge, the historia n questions the rightness of the line of argument which led Mr Justice Clyn e to the answer he gave to the first question submitted to him : whether the detention of these persons as recommended by the Army authoritie s was justified . He says : "In view of this recommendation by the Arm y for Ministerial warrants under Regulation 26, I can see no sufficient reason which would justify the Minister in not accepting the recom- mendation ." This appears to shift the whole balance from the point on which it ha d been placed by careful calculation earlier in the war in order to ensur e the highest possible protection of the rights of the individual consonan t with the protection of the security of the nation . Regulation 26 gave power to the Minister to order the detention of a person if the Ministe r were "satisfied" that it was necessary to do so "to prevent that perso n acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence o f the Commonwealth" . The learned judge seems to suggest that the onus is on the Minister to find reasons for rejecting a recommendation . When a power is so clearly confided to a Minister, without any right of delega- tion, the more usual political and parliamentary interpretation of th e situation would be that the intention is to make sure that the power is no t used lightly or in a routine way but that independent judgment is exercised by a Minister who can be immediately made answerable to his ow n Cabinet and to Parliament for what he does . A conscientious Minister would ask those making the recommendation to produce a convincin g case for approving the recommendation and would not himself approve it simply because he had found no reasons to reject it. The previous Government had clearly taken this view for the War Cabinet had given guidance to the Minister on the matters on which he must satisfy himsel f before he approved a recommendation for detention . There is nothing to indicate in the case under discussion whether o r not the Minister for the Army did in fact examine the evidence and satisfy himself that the recommendation was well founded. The departure from previous practice, however, was that his acceptance of the recom- mendation, however reached, certainly did not satisfy the requirements established in 1940 and confirmed in 1941 that the person detained mus t himself have been engaged in subversive activities or in activities con-

736 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T trary to the interests of national security. In the case of the two Com- munists, Ratliff and Thomas, which arose in March 1941, it was declare d by the Minister for the Army of the day that "membership of a subversive association is not, in itself, a reason for internment" and that reason wa s not invoked against them, although they were in fact members of the Communist Party which had been declared an illegal organisation i n June 1940 . In the case of the Australia First Movement, which aros e almost exactly 12 months later in March 1942, little could be allege d against some of the persons except that they had been associated eithe r with the Movement or personally with its president and the Movement was a lawful organisation . This allegation was apparently accepted by the Minister as sufficient ground for approving a recommendation fo r detention . Taking the view he did on Ministerial responsibility, Mr Justice Clyn e found that the Army authorities were not justified in recommending th e detention of eight persons . A study of his report reveals that, independentl y of any consideration of the earlier events recounted above, he had reached his own opinion that "mere membership of the Australia First Movement was not in itself sufficient to warrant a person's detention" . It was mainl y because of that opinion that he found that the detention of some person s was not justified . Presumably the detention of the others was held to b e justified because of their activities . An examination of the report reveals that in 1942, and indeed as late as 1945 when the report was made, th e measure of conduct "prejudicial to Australia's war effort" was much mor e narrow than it had been, in different circumstances, a year earlier . The "activities" of Stephensen, against whom the blackest case was alleged , seem to have been the holding of certain opinions concerning which som e of the evidence belonged to a pre-war period, and the preparation of th e manifesto of January 1942 . Examining the making of the orders for detention by the Minister fo r the Army, the fact emerges that the safeguards worked out in 1940 for th e exercise of Ministerial power had disappeared. A second safeguard lay in the right of appeal inserted into the regulation s by various amendments made in 1940 and 1941 . Mr Justice Clyne found on inquiry that all the persons who were detained were given a prope r opportunity of appealing against the detention and there was no evidenc e that their cases were not fairly and justly considered . Some of the detained persons did not in fact appeal . Among the reasons subsequentl y advanced by them for not appealing was an objection to being "tried" b y a "secret tribunal" . This objection inevitably prompts the memory that in the public agitation against the internment of Ratliff and Thomas it ha d been argued by some of the Labour Opposition that Australian citizen s should not be detained and then obliged to appeal but should be charged with a specific offence and given an open trial . In September 1942 Evatt, who had claimed open trial for Ratliff and Thomas in 1941, was advancing Ministerial reasons why it was not possible for the Australia First peopl e to have an open trial .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 73 7 Some protests reached the Attorney-General's Department . For example, on the 25th the South Yarra Branch of the Australian Labour Party sent t o the Acting Attorney-General a resolution that members of the Movement "be given a public trial according to the laws of the land" ; and that day the Christian Socialist Movement, Ashbury, New South Wales, asked the Attorney-General that the same rights be accorded the imprisoned member s of the Australia First Movement as the Christian Socialist Movement had requested for Ratliff and Thomas . On 28th April the Constitutional Associa - tion of New South Wales urged the Prime Minister that "at the earlies t moment your own declared intention should be carried into effect b y bringing the accused persons to trial so that they may then have the opportunity of making an answer to the charges" . This letter was signed by the president of the Association, Dr Frank Louat. l The detentions also became the subject of parliamentary debate . Forde, as Minister for the Army, had announced the arrests on 26th March 1942 :

Documents and papers which have been seized purport to show that certai n people in Australia intended to make contact with the Japanese army at the momen t of an invasion of Australia. The documents set out elaborate plans for sabotage at vulnerable points in this country, and describe methods calculated to make resistanc e to the Japanese impossible . Plans for the assassination of prominent people are set out . One document purports to be a proclamation with the heading "Australi a First Government", and "welcomes to this country as friends and liberators the Japanese leaders and army" . These documents indicate a fifth column activity o f the worst kind by a very small band of people . 2 Next morning, immediately after question-time, the Leader of th e Opposition, Fadden, moved an adjournment in order to discuss "the dis- closure . . . of a treasonable plot" . The Minister's statement, he said, "came as a severe shock to this Parliament and to the whole of Australia . . . charges of an intention to establish in Australia a Quisling government t o cooperate with and give assistance to the King's enemies, to sabotage vita l defence works, and to assassinate certain unnamed individuals are withou t parallel in Australian history and in British history, at any rate since the Guy Fawkes plot . Arrests of this description must be followed by trial fo r ." 3 The subsequent debate revealed the alarm with which the speakers viewed the alleged conspiracy ; there were demands for an examina - tion of the general security measures throughout the country ; there must be firmer measures to deal with aliens . Mr Blackburn made a characteristic plea : "If they are alleged to be guilty of treasonable practices . . . they should not be detained in gaol without an early trial . Either they should be liberated speedily or speedily prosecuted"; 4 to which the Prime Minister, Mr Curtin, added :

The first obligation on the Government was . . . to take the elementary precautio n of removing them from any possibility of carrying on their activities until suc h

l Dr F . R. Louat, QC . Lecturer and radio commentator 1938-47 ; President, Constitutional Associa- tion 1940-46 . Barrister-at-law ; of Sydney ; b . Guildford, NSW, 30 Dec 1901 . Died 27 Jan 1963 . 3 Commonwealth Debates, Vol 170, p . 462 . - Commonwealth Debates, Vol 170, p . 516 . 4 Commonwealth Debates, Vol 170, pp . 517-I8 .

738 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T time as the evidence was examined . . . I agree with the honorable member fo r Bourke (Mr Blackburn) that there ought to be no prejudicing of the fair trial o f these people, and that they ought to be given every opportunity to establish thei r innocence, if they are innocent .° Mr Brennan was equally forthright : I entirely concur with the view expressed by the honorable member for Bourk e . . that these persons against whom these clearly diabolical practices are allege d should, if evidence exists to support the charges made against them, be put upon thei r trial. I decline absolutely to accept an ex parse statement in regard to their guilt, even from such an unimpeachable authority as the Minister for the Army (M r Forde) . a In May Mr Rosevear asked the Minister for the Army the reason for the delay in formulating charges, and he was joined by Mr Francis 7 of the Opposition and Mr Calwell of his own party ; in addition Mr Archie Cameron, an Opposition member, wanted to know why, while those i n Western Australia were prosecuted before an open court, those in Ne w South Wales were to have their cases heard "by an internees tribunal th e membership of which is not generally known, and evidence before whic h is not given in public?" 8 Calwell returned to the matter in September and was supported b y Brennan.° Opposition members joined the debate . Earlier discussion of the detentions had implied that the Government was at fault in not sum- marily dealing with possible conspirators; now, with the improving state of the war, the earlier panic tended to disappear, and the complaint wa s rather that the Government was at fault in prolonging the internment o f possibly innocent people . The Minister for the Army had, it was said , "expressed in extravagant language views about members of the Australi a First Movement who had been interned". If the matter was as serious a s he had indicated, then the matter should have been dealt with forthwith ; if not, then the internment of those concerned should be closely examined ; either way the need for a speedy trial of those concerned was imperative . Evatt, with whose department responsibility for internees' tribunals now rested, made a statement on 10th September 1942 on the Security Servic e generally, as well as the detentions associated with the Australia First Movement? He gave a definition of "accepted policy in relation to restric- tions upon liberty of movement" and reasons why it was difficult to appl y "these general principles to the infinite variety of circumstances" : . there cannot be any absolute right of public trial in these cases of restrictio n of liberty. In most cases it would not be possible to prove that the accused perso n had committed a specific offence . Guilt of a specific offence is not the test to b e applied. The test to be applied is whether the restriction is reasonably necessar y

Commonwealth Debates, Vol 170, pp . 520-1 . ', Commonwealth Debates, Vol 170, p . 523 . 7 Hon Sir Josiah Francis . MHR 1922-55 ; Minister for the Army 1949-55 and Minister for the Navy 1949-51 and 1954-55 ; Aust Minister and Consul-General in New York 1955-61 . B. Ipswich, Qld, 28 Mar 1890 . Died 22 Feb 1964. 'Commonwealth Debates, Vol 171, pp . 1395-7. Commonwealth Debates, Vol 172, pp . '0-60 - 1 Commonwealth Debates, Vol 172, pp . 152-7 .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 739 to prevent the possibility of serious injury to the war effort. Again it is prevention , not punishment, which is the objective .2 Of the sixteen interned in New South Wales seven had, by September, bee n before an advisory committee and for five "internment was commuted to restriction". The remaining nine, who "demanded a public trial and eithe r did not appeal at all to the committee, or else withdrew their appeals befor e their completion" were the subject of a full investigation . "The Director- General of Security, the Deputy Director of Security for New South Wales , the officer in charge of Military Intelligence in New South Wales, an Assistant Director of Security at Canberra, and the Principal of Securit y Service, who deals with internments, were consulted ." In four cases full internment was to continue, and for the other five it was decided "t o commute the internment to an order imposing restrictions with varyin g degrees of severity". Those joining in the recommendations were impressed by the fact that many wer e probably unaware of the objects of the inmost group, and by other special factor s such as age. In one case, however, the case against the internee was very flims y indeed. There the matter rested until January 1943 when Calwell, in an adjourn- ment debate, alleged that "those unfortunate persons who were arrested and interned as members of the Australia First Movement about twelv e months ago and who were subsequently released, have been refused their legitimate claims for legal expenses which they incurred in an attempt t o clear their characters" . Brennan interjected to add that "worse than legal expenses is the fact that some of them waited six months for trial" .3 In March Blackburn pleaded that the time had come to remove restraints o n those released, and that favourable consideration should be given to thos e interned.4 In March 1944 Mr Menzies spoke at length on the New South Wale s internments. He emphasised the point that there was no evidence that th e Australia First Movement members in New South Wales were parties to the plans of the conspirators in Western Australia, and cited the statemen t of the Attorney-General, in September 1942, to that effect . Quoting the circumstances of some of the arrests he pleaded that there should be a tribunal to investigate "whether there were ever real reasons for thei r internment" .' The subsequent inquiry by Mr Justice Clyne began on 19th June 194 4 and his report was presented to Parliament on 12th September 1945, the debate on it taking place from 13th to 15th March 1946 .6 At the inquiry Mr Dovey, K.C., appeared to assist the Commissioner, Mr Shand, K.C., appeared for the Department of the Army and Securit y Services, Mr Cassidy, K .C., appeared for four of the internees and the

8 Compare this statement with Vol I, Appendix 7, p. 610 . + Commonwealth Debates, Vol 173, p. 155 . +Commonwealth Debates, Vol 174, p . 1302 . 'Commonwealth Debates, Vol 178, p . 2456. e Commonwealth Debates, Vol 186, pp. 226-36.

740 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T widow of a fifth, eleven others were represented by counsel or attorneys , and one plus the three men arrested in Perth appeared in person . Evidence was taken from military and police officers and from the internees . The transcript of the proceedings occupies 2,514 pages . Mr Justice Clyne signed his report on 5th September 1945 . He had been appointed to inquire into and report on six questions . The questions and the Commissioner's answers were :

(1) Whether the detention in March, April and May, 1942, under Regulation 2 6 of the National Security (General) Regulations of certain persons connecte d with the "Australia First Movement" group as recommended by the Arm y authorities was justified :'+ This question in the form in which it is expresse d leaves some doubt as to its proper construction, but I think it can be answered in one sense correctly by saying that the detention of these person s was justified as it was in fact recommended by the Army authorities . In view of this recommendation by the Army for Ministerial warrants unde r Regulation 26, 1 can see no sufficient reason which would justify the Minister in not accepting the recommendation . But as I am entitled to report upon all matters arising out of this Inquiry which in my opinion should b e dealt with or reported upon by me I think it proper to add that the Arm y authorities were not justified in recommending the detention of the followin g persons, namely : Keith Percival Bat h Clarence Crowle y Sydney Benjamin Hooper Edward Cory de la Roche Masey Harley Matthew s Cecil Walter Salie r Walter Frederick Tinker-Gile s Martin Francis Watts (2) Whether the said persons were given a proper opportunity of appealing against their detention to the appropriate appeal tribunal and whether thos e who did appeal had their cases fairly and justly considered : All the persons who were detained were given a proper opportunity of appealing agains t their detention in accordance with the National Security (General) Regula- tions, and I should add that not only were they given a proper opportunity to appeal, but special committees were formed to reconsider the cases of some of the persons detained . Though complaints were made by some of the persons detained about the methods adopted by the tribunal which hear d their appeals, there is no evidence that their cases were not fairly an d justly considered . (3) Whether the continuance of the original detention was justified and whethe r the restrictions imposed upon any of the said persons after release wer e just and reasonable in the circumstances : I have already stated that, in m y opinion, the persons whose names I have mentioned ought not to have bee n detained, and accordingly the continuance of their detention was not justified . But the continuance of the detention until they were ultimately released o f the persons rightly detained was justified, and the restrictions imposed o n those persons who were released subject thereto were in the circumstance s just and reasonable .

e There is ground for serious criticism of the terms drawn for the inquiry . The use of th e word "justified", as the Commissioner indicated rather gently, is uncertain in its meaning . Th e finding of the Commissioner gave the word a narrow meaning, namely that what was don e was justified in law inasmuch as the recommendation for detention was legally made and legally approved . Unfortunately in public discussion he was reputed to have found the action to hav e been justified in the far wider and popular sense of the term .

THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT 74 1 (4) Whether it is proper that any further action should be taken in respect of any of the said persons : In my opinion there are no reasons for any further action in respect of any of the said persons . (5) Whether in the case of any of the said persons, it is proper that they should receive any compensation from the Commonwealth and, if so, wha t amount: The persons who, in my opinion, ought not to have been detained and therefore should be granted compensation are the following : Keith Percival Bat h Clarence Crowle y Sydney Benjamin Hoope r Edward Cory de la Roche Masey Harley Matthews Cecil Walter Salier Walter Frederick Tinker-Giles As, in my opinion, the arrest of these persons was justified, but thei r subsequent detention was not, they are not entitled to compensation as a matter of law. He said that he thought the persons wrongly detained were entitled t o a public declaration that they were in fact wrongly detained and wer e not disloyal and should receive the following compensation : Keith Percival Bath £500. Clarence Crowley £500. Sydney Benjamin Hooper Payment of the costs incurred by him in his appeal to the Advisory Committee and in connexion with this Inquiry an d of the medical expenses incurred b y him in consequence of his detention . Edward Cory de la Roche Masey £350 . Harley Matthews _ £ 700. Cecil Walter Salier _ £500. Walter Frederick Tinker-Giles ._ Payment of the costs incurred by him in his appeal to the Advisory Committee and in connexion with this Inquiry . He recommended also that the widow of Watts, who had died o f illness in July 1944, should be granted £400. The recommendations of the Commissioner for compensation and hi s findings that the detention of some of the persons was not warranted le d to considerable correspondence and the lodging of further claims for com- pensation from persons who considered they had been wronged . The investigation of these legal claims, some of which are still s in dispute, is beyond the scope of a history of Australia at war. What is the summing up on the matters that are our immediate concern ? The Australia First Movement certainly did not represent any organise d subversion or any organised action prejudicial to the Australian war effort . Assuming that it was "Fascist" in outlook it certainly could not be com- pared with the Communist Party as a purposeful and well-organised instru- ment for advancing its own policies . The "conspiracy" in Perth seems to have been a crazy piece of plottin g by persons of no consequence who would certainly have had no capacit y

"This manuscript was written in 1951 and the final revision made in 1964 .

742 THE AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMEN T to put their plot into effect and had no contact with the enemy and ther e is a strong suspicion that they were encouraged in developing their crazy ideas by the person chosen to "investigate" them . The Australia Firs t Movement, as a movement, was not concerned in this conspiracy . In the Movement there were some persons who expressed publicl y opinions that might have been harmful to the Australian war effort if thei r opinions had any influence on listeners . Perhaps the matter of greate r concern than whether their opinions had any influence was whether, bein g Fascist and anti-Communist, they may not have attracted counter-demon- strations either from ordinary Australians or from Communists an d provoked public disorder. The detention of some of the 21 persons concerned was undoubtedl y the grossest infringement of individual liberty made during the war an d the tardiness in rectifying it was a matter of shame to the democratic institution and to the authorities concerned. The incident, occurring at the time of greatest danger to Australia and during the fear of invasion, was a reflection of the state of mind of official- dom and the preoccupation of the people with matters other than civi l liberty. Perhaps in the uncertainties of the day extreme action might have been excusable, or the argument that it is better to make a mistake than to do nothing. Every war has its casualties and even if some casualtie s may have been avoided they have to be accepted . That is the only line of argument that could possibly excuse the action taken. In retrospect , the most charitable view is that, under the strain of wartime anxiety, th e Curtin Government had not fully appreciated the nature of the actions taken in its name. Without that assumption the judgment would be harsh indeed. A serious aspect of the case was the weakness of public or genera l political concern about the possible infringement of civil rights or th e inflicting of a wrong on the individual and the silence of many of thos e who had made a public profession of being the watchdogs of civil liberty .