Talk:Ben Chifley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr Austin,
Association with left-wing elements ( = Communist) issues was indeed an election issue in 1949 , rightly or wrongly. Dismissing such statements (and me) as right-wing is utterly wrong.
Two examples of references for this are this webpage and [1] (closing paragraphs).
BTW - I wrote that second paragraph which described his achievements - how is that right-wing or biased? However, you wote that analysis of his election defeat - which I did not regard as NPOV.
Arno 06:47, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The Ben Chifley article says that Ben Chifley opposed the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in 1951 "on civil liberties grounds". Yet over at the Robert Menzies article, it says that the Labor Party led by Chifley let the bill pass through the Senate (which the ALP controlled during Menzies' first term). Which is correct?
Based on my reading of that period of Australian history, I have the impression that Chifley was vehemently anti-Communist (e.g. sending in the troops at the Minmi coal mine), while his successor Doc Evatt favoured a softer approach towards the Reds. I know that Evatt campaigned against the Bill at the referendum later in 1951 after Chifley passed away - perhaps Chifley was quite happy to let Menzies ban the CPA, but Evatt was more libertarian?
In any case, the Chifley article is right and the Menzies article is wrong, or vice versa. --Humehwy 00:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Answer to the above:
Both Chifley and Evatt were anti-Communist in the sense that they opposed Communism as an ideology and the influence of the CPA in the labour movement in particular. Evatt was after all Attorney-General in Chifley's government and was responsible for jailing Lance Sharkey for sedition. Evatt also founded ASIO as a means of keeping the CPA under surveillance.
Both Chifley and Evatt, however, opposed the Menzies government's bill to ban the CPA and the subsequent referendum. This was not through any sympathy towards the CPA but on two grounds of principle: that it was wrong to ban political parties (and also counter-productive), and that the reverse onus of proof in the bill was contary to the principles of British law.
Nevertheless, the ALP allowed the anti-Communist bill through the Senate, much against the wishes of both Chifley and Evatt, after the ALP Federal Executive ordered them to do so (as it then had the power to do). The Executive was strongly influenced by the Catholic right-wing faction of the party, and was also motivated by fear that Menzies would use the bill as a pretext for an election if it was blocked in the Senate.
Once the bill was passed, Evatt (as a lawyer) took the lead in the campaign against it, successfully arguing in the High Court that it was unconstitutional, and then leading the campaign to defeat the referendum. In this he had Chifley's full support. Chifley was dying and unable to carry the campaign burden that Evatt took on.
So there is no contradiction between the two articles, although they should probably be edited so that they tell the same story about these events.
Adam 13:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Chifley University
Can anyone explain what this sentence means?
- According to a debate (http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansArt.nsf/0/ca256d11000bd3aa4a25656e000f21b6?OpenDocument) on the topic, held in 1997 after the Labour party had regained government, the decision to rename Chifley University reflected a desire to attach the term of Western Sydney to institutions of lasting significance, and that the idea ultimately received the support of Bob Carr, later the Premier of New South Wales.
Adam 09:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
