APPENDIX 7
THE CASE OF RATLIFF AND THOMA S
In December 1940, Horace Ratliff, an Australian-born labourer, unmarried, 46 years of age, and Max Thomas, a New Zealand-born labourer ,
aged 29, were charged jointly in four charges under Section 42, Sub-sectio n
1(b) of the National Security (General) Regulations . Each was als o
charged separately under Section 17A, Sub-section 1(c) . Each was sentenced to serve a total of six months' imprisonment with hard labour ,
their various sentences being made concurrent. The Magistrate also require d
each of them to enter into a bond to observe the Regulations under th e
National Security Act for the duration of the war but each refused to d o
so and incurred a further sentence which was also served concurrentl y
with the previous sentences . The allegations against them concerned th e
possession of a typewriter copying machine, documents and publications ,
and it was stated in evidence that they had rented a house at Como unde r
an assumed name in order to carry on the preparation and distributio n
of Communist propaganda . After serving the sentence and being released ,
they were interned, the recommendation by the military authorities fo r
their internment being based first, on their active association with Communism both before and after the declaration of the Communist Party a s
an illegal association, and, second, their disregard of National Security
Regulations, combined with their refusal to enter a bond to observe th e
Regulations for the duration of the war.
The decision to intern them was made after consultation with th e
Advisory War Council . In Advisory War Council Agendum No . 27, o f
18th March 1941, the Minister for the Army said that, acting in accordance with a policy declared by the War Cabinet on 3rd April 1940, h e
had refrained from ordering the detention of persons against whom th e
evidence consisted solely of membership of a subversive association or th e
profession of Communism as a political doctrine . The War Cabinet required
that before an order was issued the Minister for the Army 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 . The Minister had been requested by the military authorities t o
issue detention orders in respect of two professed Communists, Thoma s
and Ratliff, and he believed that he would be acting in accordance wit h
the present policy if he exercised his power but, before doing so, h e
sought the views of the Advisory War Council as to whether he wa s
justified in so believing and he gave the Council the information presente d
to him about the two men . He also sought the approval of the Advisor y
War Council to "the extension of the present policy with regard t o
the internment of Communists " along the following lines :
Membership of a subversive association is not, in itself, a reason for internment .
The Minister may, however, if satisfied with respect to a particular person shown to
610
THE CASE OF RATLIFF AND THOMA S
have been a member of a subversive association that he has by act of speec h
attempted to impede the successful prosecution of the war, or to undermine th e
cause for which Australia is at war, order that such person shall be detained .
Provided that internment shall only be resorted to when no other form of control
is considered as adequate to prevent the continuance of such acts and/or utterances .
The Council, at a meeting on 4th April, took the view that a definite
rule could not be laid down but each case must be decided on its merit s
by the Minister for the Army, although non-Government members individually would assist him with their advice if he wished) . There is no recor d
of any objection having been raised to the idea of internment by Ministeria l
order after release from imprisonment.
Ratliff was released from gaol on 3rd May and Thomas on 7th May .
It was alleged that both men again engaged in spreading Communist
propaganda and doing whatever they could to hinder the war effort . On
26th May the Minister for the Army signed orders for their detention
and both were interned on 14th June . A week later, on 22nd June, Germany attacked Russia . Ten days later, on 2nd July, the two men attracted
attention to their case by starting a hunger strike and their "martyrdom "
became the occasion of public agitation, apparently originating in protests
by the Ironworkers' Union, of which Thornton, a Communist, was secretary .
On 16th July the Minister for the Army again brought their case before
the Advisory War Council for an expression of opinion, giving th e
Council full details of the case, although in view of the fact that bot h
men had lodged objections to internment and an Appeal Tribunal would
hear their objections, it would have probably been more proper to have
used the usual machinery of appeal . In the Council, Evatt who on 9th
July had publicly taken up the cause of the men, repeated the argumen t
which had been popularised during the agitation for the release of the me n
that they were being punished twice for the same offence . His second
point was that the entry of Russia into the war had now transformed th e
attitude of Communists and there was no reason to continue to detain th e
men . After the meeting, in a public statement, he added the point tha t
Australian citizens should be charged with a specific offence and given a n
open trial and not detained "on the fiat of the Minister" .
The Advisory Committee, Mr Justice Pike, W. H . Wilson and S . McHutchison, heard the objections of Ratliff and Thomas against internmen t
on 18th and 19th July . The Committee permitted counsel for th e
objectors to produce evidence that the detention of the men had already le d
to a great deal of industrial unrest and that such industrial unrest woul d
be greatly increased if their release were not granted, although the committee refused to accept the proposition that it would be better to recommend their release than to allow industrial unrest to hamper the wa r
effort, for the acceptance of such a proposition would be to hand over th e
functions of the committee to outside bodies and admit that in any an d
1 Advisory
War Council Minute 245.
THE CASE OF RATLIFF AND THOMAS
61 1
every case sufficient manifestation of unrest could lead to the release o f
the internees however strong the evidence against them .
In giving this evidence a trade union witness said that the ground fo r
protest and hence industrial unrest was the belief that the men were bein g
punished twice for the same offence and internment had been made with out public trial . The committee found :
It appears to us that these reasons entirely avoid what is the real reason for internment. Internment is not in any shape or form a criminal proceeding, but is use d
purely and simply for the purpose of protecting the State from the efforts to hampe r
the war effort by the particular internee, and we venture to think that if the trad e
union bodies had had before them the evidence directed to this particular featur e
they would not have arrived at the opinions they did and as expressed in the resolutions passed by them .
The committee found from the evidence that there was no doubt tha t
up to the time of their arrest the men were actively engaged in deliberatel y
hindering by every means in their power the war effort of Australia, tha t
their views had not changed up to 22nd June and that their intention afte r
release from prison was to carry on as before . The change on 22n d
June was, according to their own solicitor, by no means a change of
heart but a change in their opinion as to the best method of obtaining thei r
ultimate aim, a form of society based on that obtaining in Russia. If n o
question of a changed attitude had arisen, the committee could not possibly
have recommended any other course than continued internment in th e
interests of the security of the Commonwealth . The question for the committee therefore resolved itself into this : Is the change of opinion a genuin e
one and is the undertaking they are prepared to give a sufficient safeguar d
against the continuation of the hampering of the war effort? The committe e
had doubts on this point and felt unable to say that it was satisfied tha t
it was neither necessary nor advisable for the public safety or the defenc e
of the Commonwealth that the two men should continue to be detained .
Menzies in a statement on 23rd July added a further answer to the
question saying that the Government could not risk the war activities o f
the country by accepting the assurances of citizens who could profess t o
change their minds with such facility and who even now apparently fel t
no sense of duty towards their own country as such .
At a meeting of the Advisory War Council on 29th July the findings o f
the - committee were circulated for information . Evatt brought forward
representations made by trade unions for release of the men to preven t
continuance of industrial unrest . Beasley urged the importance of doin g
something to strengthen the hands of the moderate elements in the trade
union movement who were trying to prevent stoppages . It is plain fro m
the meeting that the question had ceased entirely to be one of rights an d
wrongs and had become rather one of trying to prevent stoppages .2
After a change of government the men were released by order of th e
Minister for the Army on 21st October, on a personal bond of £50, with a
surety of £100 in each case given by the President and Assistant Secretar y
2
Advisory War Council Minute 443 .
612
THE CASE OF RATLIFF AND THOMA S
of the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council that they woul d
observe and comply with the provisions of the National Security Act and
Regulations . They were also required to give a personal undertaking i n
the following terms :
I believe that it is the duty of all Australian citizens to work for national unit y
and a maximum war effort to secure victory over Nazism and Fascism as earl y
as possible .
I undertake to assist in the development of this duty and I will refrain from al l
acts which might impede the war effort in any way . Furthermore I will do all in
my power as an individual to ensure the speedy conclusion of the war with victor y
for the British Commonwealth of Nations and her Allies .
Their release was hailed in some quarters as a vindication of variou s
principles of civil liberty . The essential feature of the episode, however ,
would appear to have been the organisation of a public protest against th e
way in which the Minister had used his powers under Regulation 26 . There
was no legal question about the possession of the powers nor was th e
wartime necessity of confiding such powers to the Executive openl y
challenged . In the organisation of the protest it is plain that the concer n
was not only with principles of civil liberty but with finding an occasio n
for a political demonstration and the object of attack was the Governmen t
itself as well as the alleged abuse of power .
The above account, based on the official documentation, may b e
amplified by and contrasted with the contemporary account objectively
given, according to the information available, in The War and Civil Rights,
3rd Series, and Liberty and the Labour Government, which were published
by the Australian Council for Civil Liberties in October 1941, and Jun e
1942 respectively .