The Apostasy of Allan Fraser: the alp and civil liberties in 1955.

Moore, Andrew

Among the disconsolate souls who spent the chilly winter of 1955 in the southern tablelands of New South Wales incarcerated in Goulburn Gaol (then known as Goulburn Training Centre), one, prisoner no. 509, put his period of detention to good use. Using the prison library, which he regarded as 'one of the strongest features of the place' to good effect, Francis (Frank) Courtenay Browne wrote a manuscript on the history of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). (1) Contributing to a genre that would become familiar in recent labour historiography, the thrust of the argument was that the party born in the industrial struggles of the 1890s had sold out the working class and compromised its principles. Browne's great political hero was former Prime Minister W.M. Hughes. (2) Thus, for Browne, the party's evolving dismantlement of its nationalist and racist past was of particular concern. In this instance, too, Browne regarded himself as a humble 'worker' who had been imprisoned for doing no more than plying his trade as a journalist. (3)

In large part, Browne blamed Dr H.V. Evatt, leader of the ALP and four of his ALP colleagues, E.G. Whitlam, N. Lemmon (NSW), A.S. Drakeford (Vic.), and N.J.O. Makin (SA) for his predicament. Browne and his employer, Ray Fitzpatrick, proprietor of the Bankstown Observer, were sentenced to three months' imprisonment for contempt of parliament on a vote of members of the House of Representatives, the first and only time this has happened in Australian history. On 28 April 1955 the pair had published an article in the Bankstown Observer which attacked the reputation of the local Labor MP for Reid, Charles Morgan. The wily politician successfully convinced his colleagues in the House of Representatives and its Privileges Committee that he was being intimidated into silence. Seen in this light the matter could be construed to be contempt of Parliament, a judgement which the Privileges Committee supported and referred to the House of Representatives to take 'appropriate action'.

On 10 June 1955 members of the House voted to imprison the pair to gaol for three months or until Parliament was prorogued. Whitlam and the other three ALP members crossed the floor to vote with the Menzies government to imprison the pair. Even Dr Evatt, the renowned civil libertarian, had been lukewarm in his support.

Though non-labor parliamentarians voted en bloc to imprison, Browne reserved much of his vitriol for Evatt and the four ALP men who had crossed the floor. The latter, Browne snarled, would go 'into Labor history as traitors to the principles of the Party ... Their names will be remembered'. (4)

Browne's analysis of events was seemingly confused. Certainly it conflicts with the historiography of the privilege case. When Frank Green, the Clerk of the House of Representatives at the time, wrote his memoirs in retirement from Tasmania, he cast Prime Minister R.G. Menzies as the villain of the piece. In Green's view, Fitzpatrick and Browne's political martyrdom was predicated largely on the Prime Minister's disdain for the cantankerous Browne, while Fitzpatrick was little more than collateral damage. Not long before Browne had published an article in his newsletter, Things I Hear, reviving the old allegation of the Prime Minister's cowardice in not enlisting in the Australian Imperial Force at the start of World War I. According to Green, Menzies sought revenge. No fan of the Prime Minister, Green saw this as a further example of the way he had compromised parliamentary democracy and permitted executive government to reap damage upon the rule of law. (5) Green's version of events has recently been challenged by Harry Evans, another long serving and highly respected parliamentary official who laments that Green's account 'has unfortunately achieved the status of gospel on the affair'. In a scholarly article published in 2003, Evans characterizes Green's interpretation as 'unreliable' and 'confused comment'.

In Evans' view, both Menzies and Dr H.V. Evatt were 'eminent constitutionalists' and thus above such shallow and mendacious motives as exacting revenge, too principled to have gaoled two individuals for reasons of personal malice. (6)

The purpose of the present article is not to revisit the complex political, personal and constitutional issues underpinning the Bankstown Observer privilege case. (7) Nor does it seek to dispute the central role of Prime Minister R.G. Menzies. Rather, the intention is to highlight the principled stand of one Labor member, Allan Fraser, who, almost alone, contested the gaoling of Fitzpatrick and Browne. This aspect of the privilege case, specifically its lamentable outcome, that very nearly resulted in Fraser being expelled from the Parliamentary Labor Party for holding forthright views unpopular among his colleagues, has been largely ignored in the literature. (8) Moreover, there remains a sense in which Frank Browne's account of Dr Evatt's complicity was right. Notwithstanding the ALP leader's status as an eminent constitutionalist and civil libertarian, rightly revered for his part in opposing Menzies' attempts to ban the Communist Party in 1950-51, Labor may also be held accountable for the gaolings.

The extent to which it both involved and compromised the party's leader has not been recognised. Crocketf s biography of Evatt is a case in point. In Dr Crockett's view Evatt firmly opposed imprisonment on the grounds that Browne and Fitzpatrick 'should be allowed the rights of legal defence, and that the House should not effectively act as both judge and jury'. (9)Evatt certainly voted against the gaolings but beyond that Crockett's version of events is debateable.

In shedding fresh light on these matters our starting point must be to reinforce Fred Daly's assessment of the case. It was, the Labor MP for Grayndler later suggested, 'an all-time low for Parliament ... a travesty of justice, with Parliament appearing in the role of judge, jury and prosecutor all rolled into one'. (10) The pair had been denied legal representation before the Privileges Committee which met on 7 June 1955 and also before the House three days later. They were also denied the right of cross-examination and the right of appeal. The only legal-judicial review to which the matter was subject, first in the High Court and then the Privy Council in London, focused solely on the constitutionality of the process rather than the rights and wrongs of the gaolings. Sydney's Daily Telegraph was not far wide of the mark when it assailed the nation's parliamentarians as 'a bunch of one hundred and twenty unskilled judges, all interested parties, and all howling for the blood of the two accused'. (11)

In large part, the privilege case reflected very little credit on any of the parties who were involved. Rather than pursuing any great act of high-minded principle, Charlie Morgan cynically used privileges machinery to exact revenge against a local rival (Fitzpatrick). He then had the gall to proclaim, immediately before the vote was taken in the House to gaol Fitzpatrick and Browne, that 'probably I am the saddest man in the place', and praised Menzies for the 'deep sense of responsibility and sense of justice' he had displayed throughout the proceedings. (12) Perhaps, too, it has been argued, we should not shed 'crocodile tears' for the two political prisoners. (13) Apart from his newspaper interests, Ray Fitzpatrick was a gangster known in the media as the 'Mr Big of Bankstown'. With the corrupt borough of Bankstown, a south-western suburb of Sydney, in his pocket, Fitzpatrick had spread his tentacles of influence through the NSW ALP, the police, judiciary and State government. (14) Even in Commonwealth Parliament, in the past the likes of former NSW premier, J.T. Lang, and other Lang Laborites, such as Senator Stan Amor, had done his bidding. Frank Browne, too, was an aggressive, venal, thoroughly disreputable and unpleasant man who more than likely used Things I Hear to blackmail individuals into 'nonpublicity'. (15) Later the founding father and self-styled 'Leader' of Australia's first Neo-Nazi political party, Browne subsequently claimed to have murdered two men. (16) It is possible he did the same to his attractive blond wife, the concert pianist Marie Ormston, who stood by him faithfully in 1955 but fell to her death in suspicious circumstances near her home in Dover Heights in 1963. (17) It seems likely that both the short shrift and lack of leniency extended to both political prisoners by the nation's parliamentarians in 1955 were driven, at least in part, by their recognition that both Fitzpatrick and Browne were miscreants who were 'overdue' for punishment of some kind. As Joe Gullett, a Liberal MHR later wrote to Browne, 'I always thought you had something of this sort coming to you and I imagine you feel that it is a calculated risk you take'. (18)

In the battle to maintain civil liberties in Australia throughout the Cold War, the historian Brian Fitzpatrick, leader of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties (ACCL) and no relation to the Bankstown clan, played an honourable part. He led numerous campaigns, from opposing the proposal to ban the Communist Party by referendum and legislation in 1950-51, to disputes at the Commonwealth Literary Fund in 1952 and 1955 about left-wing writers receiving financial support, to the Petrov Affair and the trawling operation it set in train among Australia's leftists. In Brian Fitzpatrick it is doubtful whether Australian McCarthyism had a more sincere or indefatigable opponent. (19)

With respect to the Fitzpatrick and Browne affair, however, even the crusading historian and his Melbourne-based ACCL were found wanting. Though the privilege case was clearly more important than many of the other issues that consumed the ACCL's energies in 1955, it was not included in any of the organization's case files, nor promoted in its journal, Civil Liberty. When the ACCL raised the issue of parliamentary privilege it was to criticize 'too much free speech' in the Victorian Parliament where parliamentarians allegedly defamed citizens without those citizens enjoying any right of legal redress. (20) Brian Fitzpatrick's silence on the privilege case is all the more surprising since he saw the issue as important enough to include in one of his books, The Australian Commonwealth, published in 1956, a work largely concerned with the contraction of democratic rights in Australia since World War I.

Here Fitzpatrick refrains from nailing his colours to the mast about Fitzpatrick and Browne. Nonetheless, he does point out that the constitutional argument endorsed by the High Court that the Commonwealth Parliament enjoyed the right to sentence citizens to gaol simply because the British House of Commons had that power is not supportable. (21)

Among the activists associated with the ACCL were two individuals who clearly recognised the importance of the privilege case. One was the Sydney bookseller Alex Sheppard. A close confidant of Dr Evatt and earmarked at the time to become the editor of a forthcoming national Labor newspaper, Sheppard wrote to Frank Browne in gaol assuring him that he was 'one of your staunchest supporters'. Sheppard also added, surprisingly enough for a man of the Left addressing the extreme right-wing Browne: 'Keep up your good work'. (22)

The second individual, the focus of the present article, was Allan Fraser, Labor MHR for Eden-Monaro, a large rural electorate adjoining the Australian Capital Territory. A former vice-president and then current member of the ACCL executive, Fraser was in close contact with Brian Fitzpatrick in 1955, even if their correspondence was largely taken up with the publication and availability in Melbourne of the Report of the Royal Commission into Espionage. (23)

Described by Clem Lloyd, as 'a resonant speaker with distinctive articulation who brought a luminous intellect and a passionate disposition to the practice of politics', Allan Fraser was a consistent political maverick. (24) Best remembered for his subsequent early opposition to the Vietnam War, he was born on 18 September 1902 in Carlton, Melbourne. Leaving school aged 17, Fraser joined the staff of the Hobart Mercury as a cadet journalist. He also built close relations with the ALP's Tasmanian branch, his career thereafter consistently straddling the related universes of Labor politics and journalism. After working for the Argus, the Sydney Sun (as parliamentary roundsman in Canberra) and the Times in London, he was sacked from a junior position in the Daily Telegraph in 1939. Fraser then accepted the post of secretary to the Labor politician R.J. Heffron in New South Wales. Acting as publicity officer for Heffron and writing for the Labor Daily that Heffron had appropriated from former Premier J.T. Lang, Allan Fraser is sometimes credited with helping to formulate the strategy that eventually overturned Lang's stranglehold in New South Wales. (25)

In this respect, Fraser's career became embroiled with the political machinations that preceded the 1955 privilege case. At least in part, the events of 1955 represented a further acting out of the malign influence of the charismatic Lang. Charlie Morgan had long been persona non grata in Lang Labor circles. Ray Fitzpatrick, on the other hand was a Langite through and through and had acted as the Big Fella's campaign manager in the 1946 elections that had seen Morgan deposed by Lang as MHR for Reid. (26) As treasurer of the Australian Journalists Association in Sydney in 1937-38, more than likely Fraser had crossed swords with the passionately anti-union Frank Browne. He had certainly been attacked in Browne's Things I Hear.

Allan Fraser's political career followed an unconventional political trajectory. On some issues he may be regarded as left-wing, but in the mid 1950s Fraser was aligned with the right wing of the ALP. Dr Evatt's erratic leadership of the party which Fraser unsuccessfully challenged in 1956--caused many rifts. Among other things, Fraser was alienated in 1955 by 'the Doc's' denunciation of the Victorian ALP executive--the Groupers--for disloyal and subversive actions. Evatt's actions, Fraser warned with some prescience, 'could split the party from end to end' and throw 'the party into the political wilderness for years'. (27)

Called to the Bar of the House of Representatives on 10 June 1955 to account for their behaviour, Fitzpatrick, a largely uneducated Bankstown businessman, was overwhelmed by the occasion and became tongue tied, haltingly blurting out a brief, humble apology. The articulate Browne, on the other hand, presented a rousing defence of free speech, significant enough in its verve and declamatory flair to be included in several collections of best Australians speeches. (28) Browne thundered,

   If this Parliament establishes a precedent and takes the right of
   punishment into its own hands, the rights that have been fought for
   since 1215, and even before, are seriously endangered. The right of
   free speech is endangered. You talk about intimidation, sir. You
   visit exemplary punishment and what happens? There will not be a
   journalist in the land, not a newspaper proprietor in the land, who
   will feel free. (29)

When Browne had finished his harangue the House convened to discuss its course of action. Despite Menzies' subsequent recollections, by and large it was a peremptory and unsatisfactory debate. (30) To his credit Evatt enjoined his colleagues to proceed 'judicially' and was at least aware that Fitzpatrick had received rough justice. The Bankstown businessman, Evatt said, had 'come to the bar of the House obviously in a condition in which he could hardly state a sentence'. He 'must have had some more to say than he did say, but he was obviously under great nervous tension and strain'. Evatt noted that Fitzpatrick and Browne had never been charged.

Their guilt had simply been pronounced. A court of law would have allowed a judge and jury to examine all of the evidence scrupulously. Evatt's major contribution to proceedings, however, was to suggest that Menzies' motion be amended such that a 'substantial fine' replace imprisonment. (31) ALP members were not instructed to vote along party lines, though several parliamentarians, including Fred Daly, were apparently confused and did not know this until after the vote had been taken. (32)

The debate as to whether the pair should be imprisoned or fined dominated the ensuing discussion and curtailed any consideration of the broader issues surrounding the exercise of parliamentary privilege. Kim Beazley (Snr.), MHR for Fremantle, was the only member who did not support either the proposal to gaol or fine. He candidly admitted that he entertained prejudices about both Fitzpatrick and Browne and noted that the latter's journal, Things I Hear, 'has also obviously hit and hurt many members of Parliament. Unlike some others, the Western Australian, a brilliant speaker widely regarded as one of the brightest stars of the post-war ALP and a future prime minister, was magnanimous enough not to allow his dislike for Browne to colour his judgement. (33) At this stage even Allan Fraser, though pronouncing himself in agreement with much of what Browne had said, supported Evatt's proposal to fine the pair.

Les Haylen, Labor MHR for Parkes, also expressed significant reservations about the proceedings. As a journalist without legal training, Haylen confessed that he was 'shocked and horrified' to find himself, deliberating upon whether two men should be sent to gaol. He was also concerned about the processes and procedures that had been implemented and was the only parliamentarian to denounce the 'unguarded haste' in which the matter had been conducted. (34)

It remains a moot point whether partisan politicians, many of whom had an axe to grind against Browne in particular, were ever likely to respond 'judicially'. Arthur Calwell, deputy leader of the ALP, certainly never countenanced such a possibility.

The MHR for Melbourne was easily the most hawkish MP of either Labor or nonLabor persuasion. Ray Fitzpatrick, Calwell said, was 'just an illiterate lout, just a stand-over bully who has made his money by corruption'. The House, Calwell said, could not 'accept apologies from people of that sort'. Clearly referring to an article in Things I Hear that had accused him of conducting an extra-marital affair, Calwell denounced Browne as 'an arrogant rat, a character assassin' who had long 'been maligning members of this Parliament in the most scurrilous fashion, accusing them even of lecherous conduct, and making the foulest charges against them, stirring up the cesspools of his disordered imagination in order to depict members of this House ... as completely unworthy citizens'. Nor was he impressed by Browne's 'lecture on liberty' delivered by a 'hired assassin'. Calwell even raised the possibility of both men being charged with criminal defamation and regretted that parliament could not institute such a charge. (35)

The final speaker before the vote was taken was Charlie Morgan. Whatever his protestations to the contrary, the man who had initiated the contempt of parliament proceedings must surely have relished every moment of this, the culmination of his successful campaign of retribution against his Bankstown rival. Apart from praising Menzies for his lofty impartiality, Morgan explained that there was a further reason why he had followed this course of action rather than suing for defamation. Had he done so the matter would have become sub judice and all discussion or criticism would have been stifled. Morgan's statements of support for Menzies--unusual indeed for a Labor man-later became the subject of controversy in ALP branches in the seat of Reid. (36) It was now time for the votes to be taken.

The denouement of the parliamentary 'trial' began by considering Dr Evatt's amendment, the option of proceeding by a 'substantial fine'. This was defeated by 52 votes to 16. Predictably, the prime minister's motions to imprison Fitzpatrick and Browne for three months were carried emphatically, slightly more so in Browne's case (55 to 12) than in Fitzpatrick's (55 to 11). As has been suggested , Gough Whitlam and three of his colleagues, Nelson Lemmon, Arthur Drakeford, and Norman Makin, voted with the Menzies government in favour of imprisonment, each having voted for Evatt's amendment, but switching to support Menzies when the amendment was ruled out. Arthur Calwell absented himself from the House before the divisions, while a further six ALP members, Charles Morgan, G. Anderson (NSW), Fred Daly (NSW), F.E. Stewart (NSW), Patrick Galvin (NSW) and W.C. Coutts (Qld) stayed out of the chamber as the votes were being taken. Ten Labor men voted against the imprisonment of Fitzpatrick and nine against gaoling Browne. Apart from Allan Fraser, Les Haylen and Kim Beazley, in Fitzpatrick's case they were H.V. Evatt (NSW), D. Minogue (NSW), A.N. Fuller (NSW), J. Fitzgerald, (NSW), J.F. Cope (NSW), G.W.A. Duthie (Tas) and E.H.D. Russell (SA). (37) Though the parliamentary session before the winter recess had been extended by one day to facilitate this debate, a number of parliamentarians had already left Canberra, apparently regarding the matter of insufficient importance to delay their travel and holiday plans. In all the total number of votes registered either way on the decision to gaol Fitzpatrick and Browne amounted to a little more than half (54 percent) of the 123 members of the House of Representatives. The 'trial' concluded with the Speaker, A.G. Cameron, according to Fred Daly relishing his role as a 'Hanging Judge Jefferys', (38) instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to return Fitzpatrick and Browne to the bar of the House where they were independently advised of Parliament's decisions and duly conveyed to gaol, initially in the lock-up adjoining Canberra police station, later in Goulburn Gaol.

No other individual became more vitally concerned about the civil liberties ramifications of the Fitzpatrick and Browne privilege case than Allan Fraser. Yet, as has already emerged, in regard to Fitzpatrick and Browne, the MHR for Eden-Monaro was not immediately in the camp of the very highest principle. In his speech to Parliament on 10 June 1955-the day the House voted to commit the two men to gaol-Fraser supported Evatt's amendment to fine rather than imprison them. The issue, from Fraser's point of view at this stage, was not Parliament's right to respond to acts of contempt, but the severity of that response. Specifically he was concerned about depriving two citizens of their liberty. There was a need, Fraser stressed, to protect the freedoms of Parliament as an institution, but also the rights of citizens, in this case the rights of Frank Browne and Ray Fitzpatrick. In large part Fraser admitted that he agreed with the sentiments expressed by Browne in his speech to Parliament, stating,

   I cannot vote for the imprisonment of a man when that man has not
   first of all had the right to have the charges against him
   specifically stated in an open hearing, the right to be represented
   and the right to cross-examine all the rights which we give to men
   charged with the most horrific crimes in this community. These men
   have not had those basic and elementary rights, and in those
   circumstances, I feel it is incumbent upon us to give them the
   benefit of our mercy and our restraint, and to recognize quite
   frankly that we ourselves have been at fault in not establishing
   long ago some better machinery for dealing with these cases. (39)

Fraser also made the telling point that the characters and reputations of both individuals were immaterial to the present deliberations. Moreover, as he suggested, powerful newspaper proprietors like Warwick Fairfax or Frank Packer could expect a far more lenient treatment had they found themselves at the Bar of the House. Further, it was a nonsense that newspapers only rarely intimidated politicians, witness, as Fraser argued, the press campaign against Prime Minister Chifley's plans to nationalize the private trading banks in 1947.

While dissent of this ilk was expressed by other parliamentarians-and indeed the criticisms raised by Kim Beazley and Les Haylen on 10 June were more impassioned, as was their stand on the day more principled-Fraser's sense of having contributed to an injustice niggled at his conscience. His practice was to broadcast regular 15-minute radio programs, 'Your Member Speaks', on four commercial radio stations in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. The programs were noted for their passionate delivery and cerebral content. On 19 June 1955, Fraser devoted an entire broadcast to Parliament's gaoling of Fitzpatrick and Browne. Confessing how he felt complicit in the events of 10 June, Fraser conceded that he was open to a charge of inconsistency. After all he had been part of a unanimous vote to refer Charles Morgan's complaint to the Privileges Committee, as he had been of the adoption of the committee's report. Moreover, in voting to impose a fine rather than imprisonment, he had differed only from the government about the degree of punishment. Admonishing himself for not foreseeing the outcome, Fraser was cheered by the public's response to 'Black Friday of June 10'. Fraser had been concerned that Australians' instinctive regard for democratic liberties and individual rights had not been snuffed out by World War II. The howls of indignation from the community suggested otherwise. Fraser remonstrated:

   Within 100 yards of this broadcasting studio, as I speak tonight,
   in pursuance of a sentence of three months' gaol imposed by
   Parliament, two men are held imprisoned who have never been charged
   with an offence, never tried in open court, never permitted to
   front their accusers, not allowed representation by counsel, not
   exempted from incriminating themselves, not adjudged by a jury of
   their peers. (40)

Fraser's oratory was calculated to warm up the cold night air on the southern tablelands and south coast of New South Wales. Individual rights 'fought for, struggled for, bled for by our fathers' and 'the most precious cause in the world today', were at stake. In Fraser's estimation, 'Succeed in stripping one fellow citizen of those rights, and you are stripped of them too-from that moment'. While he did not question Parliament's right to respond to acts of contempt, Fraser was at pains to stress, 'the possession of power does not itself make it right to exercise that power'. Indeed he was correct on that score. Hitherto, Parliament had responded to acts of contempt with a dignified silence. (41)

Any sense of equivocation Fraser may have harboured about the privilege case had been discarded. He resolved to petition the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament. In the terms of the motion that had proposed their detention, this would immediately secure the release of the two prisoners. Failing this, Fraser announced that he would seek to free Fitzpatrick and Browne when parliament reconvened. Having taken preliminary soundings among parliamentary colleagues he believed that the vote of 10 June would be overturned if retaken. (42)

When this talk was delivered the High Court decision in respect of Fitzpatrick and Browne was pending. When Fraser next returned to the microphone on 26 June, Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon had ruled that under section 49 of the Constitution parliament possessed the constitutional right to imprison citizens for a breach of privilege. Fraser was undaunted. In no way, he contended, did this impinge upon whether or not parliament should have used that power. It was wrong, Fraser argued,

   to deprive any man of his liberty unless he has first enjoyed, in
   his defence, all the rights and safeguards which are set out in the
   British system of justice. While Browne and Fitzpatrick remain
   imprisoned without trial that system is affronted, and the fair
   play of the Australian people is also affronted. (43)

Prime Minister Menzies was not swayed by Fraser's call to prorogue parliament. Not only did Menzies have little time for Fraser, but, by this time public anger and the initially impassioned press response towards the gaolings were waning. Addressing the matter of the ongoing imprisonment of Fitzpatrick and Browne, therefore, had become less of a priority and would have to wait until the end of the parliamentary winter recess. This was in the last week of August 1955.

Accordingly, on 23 August Fraser announced that he would move for the release of the two prisoners the following day. The procedure was that such a motion would normally require a week's prior notice. On 24 August Menzies refused to waive the requirement, having made contingency plans at a Cabinet meeting the previous day to use Jack McLeay, Percy Joske, David Drummond and Donald Cameron, along with himself, to speak in any adjournment motion to debate the fate of Fitzpatrick and Browne. (44) This meant that Fraser's motion was scheduled for discussion on 30 August. Because, however, he would be absent from the House that day, Menzies asked that the matter be held over until his return on 31 August. The Prime Minister was clearly not anxious to burden either himself or his government with further deliberations about the contentious privilege case.

Far more surprising than this prime ministerial cold shoulder was the hostility Allan Fraser encountered from within his own party. Even in terms of simply seeking to raise the matter for discussion, Fraser faced opposition. Initially, however, he enjoyed his leader's support. Evatt raised the matter at a meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party caucus on 24 August, stating he believed the matter should continue to be treated as a non-party issue and that he personally believed that Fitzpatrick and Browne should be released. Evatt's announcement, however, was greeted by a chorus of 'No! No!' Two of his normally strongest supporters from New South Wales, Nelson Lemmon and Gough Whitlam, evidently assailed Evatt for raising the matter. The South Australian former shearer and union official, Clyde Cameron, moved a motion that the issue of Fitzpatrick and Browne's imprisonment 'should remain where it is at present'. As chairman of Caucus, Dr Evatt ruled this motion out of order. The meeting broke into uproar. Cameron moved a motion expressing dissent from the chairman's ruling. This was carried by a large majority. Evatt had suffered a significant defeat. The ALP leader had been repudiated by his Caucus. Cameron then successfully moved a motion 'that no member of Caucus shall take action in the Parl on the B-F Case'. (45)

The reasons why members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party had taken this obdurate stand are less than clear. Perhaps it was simply that, at the time when the party had already been deeply split by the initiatives of the Groupers inspired by B.A. Santamaria, any further sign of internal disunity was regarded as poison. It might equally have been a matter of maintaining allegiance to a parliamentary colleague, Charles Morgan. However, from this point on Fraser was in breach of a Caucus instruction when he pressed for Fitzpatrick and Browne's release. The Victorian senator, Patrick ('Numbers') Kennelly, determined to move that Fraser be expelled from Caucus or otherwise disciplined if he did not adhere to this directive. (46)

The growing sense that the Fitzpatrick and Browne affair was about to claim another scalp caused a resurgence of interest in the press. Those newspapers that had been especially critical of the gaolings supported Fraser's stand. In an editorial that may have been composed in Goulburn gaol, or suggested a surprising similarity between Ezra Norton and Frank Browne's writing styles and world views, Truth warmly praised Fraser's resolve not to bow to Caucus's 'Nazi-like edict'. 'Alone among the 123 members of the House of Representatives', Truth argued, Fraser had 'shown himself prepared to fight for a principle, even if it endangers his political future'. Sanguine as to the likely results of Fraser's efforts, Truth advised, 'at least he has struck a blow against Fascist-like regimentation of Parliamentarians by their parties'. (47)

Seeking to deflect the possibility of disciplinary measures being taken against him, on 26 August Allan Fraser delivered a radio address in which he stated his general commitment to the principle of caucus solidarity. On the other hand, Fraser argued, he did not believe that his commitments to caucus meant that he was required to violate the principles of his conscience, or that the ALP executive would expect this of him. With the target audience of these sentiments in mind, Fraser took the precaution of sending a copy of the speech to Bill Colbourne, the General Secretary of the NSW ALP, 'because I hope you will agree that the issue discussed in it is one of considerable importance'. (48)

It may simply have been bravado, but in this and another of his radio addresses on 28 August, Fraser stated that he did not believe he would be disciplined for raising the matter of Fitzpatrick and Browne's gaoling in the House. Fraser claimed he had secured Dr Evatt's agreement to press parliament to release the Bankstown Two.

For Allan Fraser the issue had assumed the proportions of a holy crusade. Arguing that, 'One of the most cherished civil rights is that no man should be imprisoned without fair trial', Fraser had drawn a line in the sand. 'Only once in a lifetime', he argued, 'does the chance come to us to put words into action and to strive for them ourselves'. (49)

Given Senator Kennelly's reputation for organizing the numbers, Fraser's belief that he could buck a caucus ruling without penalty seemed increasingly unrealistic. On 30 August a Caucus meeting agreed that the following day in the House Evatt would move an amendment to Fraser's motion. This would focus on developing more appropriate responses for dealing with future cases of breaches of parliamentary privilege, thus deflecting the frontal attack of Fraser's strategy. If this amendment was defeated, it was agreed that no member would vote in the Parliament on Fraser's motion to release Fitzpatrick and Browne. Because Allan Fraser had not complied with the Caucus directive of 24 August to let the matter rest, Evatt also announced that the Parliamentary Executive of the ALP had resolved to report Fraser to both the party's NSW and Federal Executives. With such a conspicuous lack of support coming from any other quarter, at this point Allan Fraser sought the support of his younger brother, Jim, the MHR for the Australian Capital Territory. He would become increasingly important to his plans. Dr Evatt announced that Jim Fraser, too, would be reported if he seconded his brother's motion in Parliament. (50)

After addressing caucus, Fraser announced to the press that he would continue to act according to the dictates of his conscience. In his view the preamble to the ALP's Federal Platform, declaring support for 'basic civil rights guaranteed in the past by such historic documents as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus', vindicated the stand he was taking. Fraser argued that he was simply doing his utmost to live up to his pledge, as a NSW member of the ALP, to carry out the party's principles. In his view every member of the party possessed complete freedom of conscience. No one could be required to violate his or her conscience. Allan Fraser successfully claimed the high moral ground. In a rousing speech to Parliament on 31 August in support of his motion to release Fitzpatrick and Browne, Fraser explained that the issue was not one of leniency-for the gaol sentences were shortly to expire-but of righting a wrong. Nor was the issue one of defending the reputations of Fitzpatrick and Browne. This, Fraser said, was immaterial. Instead the nub of the matter was whether a sentence passed without due process should continue. Even the most odious of war criminals were accorded rights denied to Ray Fitzpatrick and Frank Browne.

If nothing else the privilege case encouraged parliamentarians to polish their oratorical skills. Arguing that 'Tyranny has no victory while a voice of protest be still raised against it', Fraser's speech rivalled Frank Browne's earlier address for flair and passion. 'No imprisonment without fair trial-it is a cry which rings down the ages of glorious history', Fraser declared. Even if parliament possessed the right to commit persons to gaol for contempt, Fraser argued that the central issue remained as to whether this was 'the wise, proper and fair use of that power by Parliament'. Commonwealth Parliament itself was on trial. Admitting it had made a mistake would enhance Parliament's stature in the eyes of the Australian people. Moreover, Fraser insisted, his stand was consistent with the traditions of the Labor Party. From its origins in the 1890s strikes and even the earlier Eureka stockade, Labor had campaigned for the extension of civil rights and opposed repressive laws. (51)

These were all cogent arguments. Fraser, however, was unable to persuade his parliamentary colleagues to support him. Describing Fraser as 'this gentleman of historic precedents and tender conscience', the Prime Minister was haughtily mocking in his response. Menzies described Fraser's conscience as both a long-playing record and in cold storage throughout Parliament's earlier discussions. The only division of opinion on 10 June, Menzies argued, had been the degree of punishment to be meted out. Fraser and other Labor members of the House had been prepared to impose a substantial fine upon men whom Fraser now suggested had not received a fair trial. Relishing the occasion and, according to Jim Fraser, 'posturing and joking', Menzies referred to the likely disciplinary procedures awaiting the member for Eden-Monaro. Tongue in cheek, the Prime Minister suggested that he hoped an ALP member in Allan Fraser's position might also expect 'the benefit of counsel, an open hearing and a jury' when facing another forum, the Executive of the NSW ALP. (52)

Outside Parliament not even Brian Fitzpatrick supported Fraser. In Fitzpatrick's view, Fraser's stand was more an attack on Dr Evatt than on the Menzies government. (53) Inside Parliament only one Labor member, Jim Fraser, inspired mainly by a sense of filial loyalty, stood with him. Others restated the argument that Parliament had legitimately defended itself as part of its brief to defend free speech. W.M. Bourke, one of the breakaway ALP Non-Communist members, argued that 'Just as the bloom on a shrub would wither and die if one severed the roots, so if one strikes at the liberty of this Parliament all other liberties in the community will wither and die'. (54) Dr Evatt's support for Fraser evaporated. The Opposition leader even misled the Parliament by stating that, at the time the issue was debated on 10 June 1955, he knew nothing of its background. Nor was Evatt's proposed amendment to Fraser's motion successful. In the event, Evatt's amendment, which was more than likely a ploy to enable Labor members to avoid voting against a Labor colleague, was simply disallowed by the Deputy Speaker.

As had been proposed at the Caucus meeting the previous day, when the motion to release Fitzpatrick and Browne was put to the vote, all ALP members, with the exception of the Fraser brothers, left the House. They watched the subsequent proceedings through the glass doors at the entrance to the chamber. Two Santamariaites, Messrs Joshua and Keon, supported the motion, but only did so because they wished to force a division and thus humiliate the ALP. Fraser's motion was defeated 62 votes to 3. It was a stinging defeat. There was, however, a slight consolation. Fraser had succeeded in having the gaolings debated far more comprehensively than had been the case in the earlier debate of 10 June.

Despite, or perhaps because of his manifest lack of success, Allan Fraser's stand did him no harm in the eyes of the media, including the regional press in his electorate. The Moruya Examiner, for one, headlined an article on the debate, 'Bravo Fraser'. If the ALP moved to expel the local member, the paper argued that the party's leaders 'might get the shock of their lives at the next election when even the most rabid conservatives of Eden-Monaro rally behind Fraser on this issue'. (55) The ACT Trades and Labor Council unanimously passed a resolution congratulating the Fraser brothers on their stand. The Secretary of the Eden-Monaro Federal Electorate Council telegraphed Bill Colbourne: 'Fraser's action does not detract from high regard in electorate. Full confidence in him as candidate'. (56)

Here, it might be argued, lies part of the explanation for Fraser's stand. His defence of Fitzpatrick and Browne afforded him a media profile otherwise denied to a back bencher in Opposition. It consolidated local support for him and increased his popularity in an electorate that traditionally oscillated between conservative and Labor custodianship. As has been mentioned, Fraser was no fan of Evatt and the status his defence of Fitzpatrick and Browne gave him could conceivably have been used as a springboard to challenge for the party leadership. If so it was a high risk strategy, especially if he were to be expelled from the parliamentary party.

For, irrespective of rank and file support for Fraser, the ALP's formidable disciplinary procedures were cranking up in the background. As chairman of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, on 2 September Evatt reported Fraser to the NSW and Federal Executives of the ALP. Setting out the case against him Evatt stated, 'Fraser had been guilty of improper conduct in as much as after a decision had been reached by the Federal Caucus relative to the Browne-Fitzpatrick case, Fraser did not accept the decision of Caucus and raised the matter in Parliament'. (57)

Having come this far, Fraser appeared before the NSW ALP Executive in a combative mood. In large part he reiterated his earlier arguments that the Caucus directive of 24 August contradicted the ALP's platform. This committed the party to preserving the rights and freedoms of the individual. Fraser also submitted that the pledge he had signed as a parliamentary member did not compel him to accept direction in terms of voting against ALP policies.

In a unanimous decision, the NSW Executive found Fraser not guilty of the charge. In November 1955 the Federal Executive came to a similar conclusion. While reaffirming the importance of individual parliamentarians accepting directions from Caucus, the Federal Executive concluded, 'having regard to all the circumstances surrounding this case no action be taken against Mr Fraser'. (58)

No doubt both decisions reflected a pragmatic assessment of likely events in the seat of Eden-Monaro had Fraser been expelled, more than an acceptance of the moral force or integrity of Fraser's arguments. In short, with an election looming in December 1955, it was likely that Fraser's expulsion would have cost Labor the seat of Eden-Monaro. With his personal popularity boosted by his stand against the gaolings, the prospect of Fraser standing as an Independent Labor candidate did not augur well for the ALP holding a traditionally conservative seat in rural New South Wales. Either Fraser would win or the seat would revert to the Country Party.

From its origins as collateral damage arising partly from the Lang Labor schism in the federal seat of Reid to its conclusion in proposals to discipline an ALP parliamentarian for holding a principled stand, the Fitzpatrick and Browne privilege case was a less than shining example of Australian social democracy at work. Browne's reservations about the ALP's commitment to fundamental principles of social justice were justified. In his estimation, 'only Allan Fraser, Leslie Haylen and Kim Beazley emerged with any credit in the public mind'. Swimming against the tide 'they will be remembered by future generations as men who contributed greatly, under severe handicaps, to the fight for a clear Bill of Rights for Australians'. (59) Indeed, the need for further legal codification of citizens' rights remains the principal lesson to emerge from the events of 10 June 1955.

Browne had reason to be disgruntled with the ALP leader. It was true that Evatt had voted against the gaolings but his call for fellow parliamentarians to proceed 'judicially' was pious humbug. As Les Haylen remarked, 'The performance of honorable members in this house to-day has shown that because of party affiliation we have not a judicial mind'. (60) If Browne's writings can be believed, at various stages in the proceedings Evatt had assured him that the matter would be resolved without the pair being sent to gaol. According to Browne, Evatt had even visited him at his home on Dover Heights to reassure him that the way events were panning out, parliament would break for its winter recess leaving the matter in abeyance. The contempt case would be quickly forgotten. (61)

To be fair to Evatt, from mid-1954 he clearly had many issues on his mind. These included dealing with the ongoing fallout of both the Santamaria-inspired split in the ALP and the Petrov affair with its politically damaging Royal Commission. Such distractions may well have impeded his judgment in respect of the privilege case. Nonetheless, in the final resort, Fitzpatrick and Browne tarnishes Evatt's reputation as a civil libertarian. When John Bennett, the stormy petrel of civil liberties in Victoria, launched a withering attack on the ALP in July 1975 in Civil Liberty, he cited a number of cases of Labor trampling upon civil liberties. These included the internment of Australia First members during World War II, the gaoling of mining union leaders during the 1949 coal strike, and its 'acquiescence in gaoling' Fitzpatrick and Browne in 1955. (62) Evatt's half-hearted defence of free speech on 10 June 1955 and his subsequent pursuit of Allan Fraser must indeed be placed alongside his earlier, heroic stand in opposition to Menzies' plans to ban the Communist Party and its inevitable consequence, the gaoling of citizens of a democracy, of course on a much grander scale than in 1955. (63)

It is also a moot point why the ACCL, Australia's most significant civil liberties organization, did not engage more fully with the Fitzpatrick and Browne privilege case. Perhaps it was simply that it intersected chronologically with the Petrov affair and this consumed the ACCL's attention. For Brian Fitzpatrick and his organization the espionage drama was part of a plot by ASIO and Menzies to establish police state conditions in Australia. Or perhaps it was felt that the mainstream media had already presented Fitzpatrick and Browne's case energetically, allowing the ACCL to devote itself to other, less well known abuses of civil liberties. It may simply have been that the focus of Fitzpatrick and Browne was in Sydney. Despite its name, the ACCL was extremely Melbourne-centric. By the mid-1950s Brian Fitzpatrick was devoting less attention to the ACCL, in favour of his Labor Newsletter, whose principal purpose was to make the ALP electable. (64)

Allan Fraser's stand warrants respect. Even if in part he may have been playing to the press gallery or shoring up local support in his seat, no other individual was more vitally or more honourably concerned about the civil liberties ramifications of the Fitzpatrick and Browne privilege case than he. Unlike most everybody else who had supported Ray Fitzpatrick's cause, either in 1955 or in the past, in Fraser's case there seems to have been no pecuniary advantage or personal friendship at stake. Les Haylen's opposition to the gaolings no doubt stemmed from a genuine sense of moral outrage, yet it seems that he, too, was one of 'Fitzie's' political cronies. The MHR for Parkes was a regular visitor to Fitzpatrick's office in Bankstown and 'one bitter afternoon' after the gaolings sought out his friend in Canberra police station lock-up. The big man from Bankstown was out in the yard chopping fire wood. According to Haylen, 'The atmosphere in the police station was friendly, almost congenial. Outside the gum trees sighed in the wind. I couldn't see any sign of the Bloody Tower--I had my back to Parliament House at the time'. (65) Allan Fraser's sympathetic family biographer is right. Fraser 'sought a principled, humanitarian position'. (66) If it is part of a modern, cynical estimation to dismiss all ALP politicians as self-interested careerists--and clearly pragmatism has often triumphed over principle in ALP history--Allan Fraser's campaign to right a wrong, risking his standing in the parliamentary party, deserves acknowledgment and remembering.

Endnotes

(1.) Browne's manuscript on the Australian Labor Party (ALP) does not appear to have survived but the burden of its argument is referred to in several biographical manuscripts he wrote about his gaol experiences, particularly Canberra Justice in Browne papers, Mitchell Library (ML) MLK 1088. These papers, largely unutilised even by scholars of right-wing politics in Australia, perhaps because of a (now corrected) spelling error in the Mitchell Library's catalogue (the 'e' was deleted from 'Browne'), are a central source for the present study.

(2.) See Browne's hagiographical, They Called Him Billy: A Biography of the Rt. Hon. W.M. Hughes, P.C., M.P, Peter Huston, Sydney, 1946.

(3.) Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (CPU), vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, p. 1626.

(4.) Frank Browne, Canberra Justice, ch. 6, pp. 9-10. Browne would not have been impressed by the way in which at least one contemporary historian lets Whitlam off the hook. See Jenny Hocking, Gough Whitlam: A Moment in History, Miegunyah Press, Melbourne, 2008, pp. 174-76.

(5.) Frank Green, Servant of the House, Heinemann, Melbourne, 1969, pp. 155-62.

(6.) Harry Evans, 'Fitzpatrick and Browne: Imprisonment by a House of Parliament', in H.P. Lee and George Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Landmarks, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 2003, pp. 145-59.

(7.) See Andrew Moore, Mr Big of Bankstown: The Scandalous Fitzpatrick and Browne affair, University of Western Australia Publishing, Perth, 2011, ch. 10; and Andrew Moore, 'A Mace to Swat Two Blow-Flies: Interpreting the Fitzpatrick and Browne Privilege Case', Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 55, no. 1, 2009, pp. 32-45.

(8.) An exception is Helen K. Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party: A Dissenting Member and His Party, MA thesis, Auckland University, 1980.

(9.) Peter Crockett, Evatt: A Life, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1993, p. 98.

10. Sun, 14 May 1976.

(11.) Daily Telegraph, 11 June 1955.

(12.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, pp. 1658-61.

(13.) See, for instance, Sydney Morning Herald, 16 September 1981 and 24 February 1994, including a letter written by Kevin Barry Morgan, son of Charles Morgan, arguing that the 'crocodile tears' that were often shed about the gaolings were unwarranted because of the character of the two men. Fitzpatrick, Kevin Morgan claimed, had hired Browne 'for the sole purpose of preventing Morgan from speaking out in Parliament about corruption and bribery in his electorate'. Browne had been prepared to prostitute his profession.

(14.) Peter Golding's biography of J.J. Cahill, They Called Him Old Smoothie, Australian Scholarly Press, Melbourne, 2009, pp. 268-69, contains an intriguing anecdote of Fitzpatrick's less than subtle methods in soliciting the support of senior politicians. Having invited Cahill, the Labor Premier of New South Wales and other members of State Cabinet to a day's boating at Gymea Bay, Fitzpatrick presented each of the politicians' wives with a fur coat. See also Moore, Mr Big of Bankstown, chs 2, 3, 4.

(15.) According to ASIO, in 1952 one American businessman paid Browne 3,000 [pounds sterling] to suppress an adverse story pertaining to his business and private affairs, justifying that payment as 'Public Relations in Reverse'. See National Archives of Australia (NAA), A6119/1, 83.

(16.) Bulletin, 9 March 1982; Browne's formation of the Australian Party is discussed in Peter Henderson, 'Frank Browne and the Neo-Nazis', Labour History, no. 89, November 2005, pp. 73-86, and Moore, Mr Big of Bankstown, ch. 11.

(17.) The suggestion that Browne, a deeply troubled individual with a strong violent streak, murdered Marie Ormston, was made to the present author by journalist C.J. McKenzie, a former employee of Ray Fitzpatrick's, in the course of various interviews in 1994-95. Discrepancies in her death certificate (Registration no. 1963/019173) and a subsequent coroner's report of 5 December 1963 (file 63/669, State Records New South Wales, 13/8805) may lend weight to this suggestion. It certainly seems suspicious that, given Ormston's prominence as an entertainer, neither her death nor the subsequent coronial enquiry was reported in the press. It may be apposite to note that Browne was a personal friend of the then NSW Police Commissioner, Colin Delaney, widely remembered in the literature as being corrupt.

(18.) Browne papers, ML MLK 1091.

(19.) Don Watson, Brian Fitzpatrick: A Radical Life, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, 1979, ch. 10.

(20.) Brian Fitzpatrick papers, National Library of Australia (NLA), MS 4965, boxes 10-17; Civil Liberty, July 1957.

(21.) Brian Fitzpatrick, The Australian Commonwealth, Cheshire, Melbourne, 1956, pp. 112, 123-55.

(22.) Browne papers, ML MLK 1091; Fitzpatrick papers, NLA MS 4965/1/15719.

(23.) Fitzpatrick papers, NLA MS 4965/1/15764.

(24.) C.J. Lloyd, 'Fraser, Allan Duncan', in John Ritchie (ed), Australian Dictionary of Biography, vol. 14, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1996, pp. 214-16.

(25.) D.W. Rawson and Susan Holtzinger, Politics in Eden-Monaro, Heinemann, London, 1958, pp. 28-29.

(26.) See Andrew Moore, 'Mr Big, the Big Fella and the Split: Fault Lines in Bankstown's Labor Politics, 1955', Labour History, no. 95, November 2008, pp. 197-212.

(27.) Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, p. 20.

(28.) Michael Fullilove (ed.), 'Men and Women of Australia!' Our Greatest Modern Speeches, Random House, Sydney, 2005, pp. 116-18; F.K. Crowley, Modern Australia in Documents 1939-1970, Nelson, Melbourne, 1980, pp. 309-11.

(29.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, pp. 1625-27.

(30.) R.G. Menzies, Afternoon Light, Cassell, Melbourne, 1967, p. 304.

(31.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, pp. 1630-34.

(32.) Sun, 14 May 1976.

(33.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, pp. 1650-53.

(34.) Ibid., p. 1645.

(35.) Ibid., pp. 1635-37.

(36.) Uren papers, NLA MS 6055 box 19 folder 1; ALP (NSW) Records, ML MSS KH 7003 item 5.

(37.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 9 June 1955, pp. 1662-63. There were two tellers on both sides of the divisions for both votes that have not been included here.

(38.) Sun, 14 May 1976.

(39.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, p. 1639.

(40.) Fraser papers, NLA MS 1844 box 22 folder 183.

(41.) For a summary of relevant cases see Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, ch. 3, and G.S. Reid and Martyn Forrest, Australia's Commonwealth Parliament 1901-1988: Ten Perspectives, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 249-65.

(42.) Fraser papers, NLA MS 1844 box 22 folder 183.

(43.) Ibid.

(44.) NAA, A4910, 3.

(45.) ALP (NSW) Records, ML KH 7269 item 679.

(46.) Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, pp. 89-90. Helen Fraser's account of the manoeuvring of ALP Caucus is usefully informed by the oral testimony of Fred Daly. Mr Gough Whitlam declined an opportunity to be interviewed for the present study on the grounds of his advanced age and many commitments.

(47.) Truth, 28 August 1955.

(48.) ALP (NSW) Records, ML KH 7269 item 679.

(49.) Fraser papers, NLA MS 1844 box 22 folder 189.

(50.) Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, pp. 90-92; ALP (NSW) Records, ML KH 7269 item 679.

(51.) CPU, vol. H of R 7, 31 August 1955, pp. 207-211.

(52.) Ibid., pp. 211-214.

(53.) Fitzpatrick papers, NLA MS 4965/1/15116.

(54.) CPU, vol. H of R 7, 31 August 1955, p. 225.

(55.) Moruya Examiner, 2 September 1955 and Argus, 1 September 1955.

(56.) Fraser papers, NLA MS 1844 box 3 folder 234; ALP (NSW) Records, ML KH 7269 item 679.

(57.) Patrick Weller and Beverley Lloyd (eds), Federal Executive Minutes, 1915-1955: Minutes of the Meetings of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1977, p. 644; Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, p. 104; ALP (NSW) Records, ML KH 7269 item 679.

(58.) Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, p. 104. See also Fraser's reminiscences of these events in Interview with Allan Fraser 25 May 1965, 26 July 1967, NLA, Oral DeB 255, 256.

(59.) Browne, Canberra Justice, ch. 6, pp. 9-10.

(60.) CPU, vol. H or R 6, 10 June 1955, p. 1646.

(61.) Browne, Canberra Justice, ch. 2, pp. 9-10.

(62.) James Waghorne and Stuart Macintyre, Liberty: A History of Civil Liberties in Australia, New South Books, Sydney, 2011, p. 129.

(63.) See L.J. Louis, 'Pig Iron Bob Finds a Further Use for Scrap Iron', The Hummer, no. 35, January June 1993.

(64.) Waghorne and Macintyre, Liberty, pp. 106-107.

(65.) Les Haylen, Twenty Years Hard Labor, Macmillan, Melbourne, 1969, p. 160.

(66.) Fraser, Allan Fraser and the Australian Labor Party, p. 75.

Andrew Moore, To preserve the integrity of the blind-refereeing process, this article was peer reviewed independently of the procedures generated by the editorial working party of Labour History to which I belong. For this I am grateful to John Shields. I am also indebted to the two anonymous referees engaged by the journal for their robust and useful comments.

Andrew Moore teaches history at the University of Western Sydney. With John Shields and Yasmin Rittau he has recently completed the Biographical Register of the Australian Labour Movement 1788-1975 which is being uploaded on-line as Labour Australia, part of the National Centre of Biography at the ANU. The URL for Labour Australia is /http:// labouraustralia.anu.edu.au/ <A.Moore@uws.edu.au>