BREATHALYSERS AND SEAT BELTS

Letter to press, quoted in Civil Liberty (February 1969).

'The Council for Civil Liberties is not in disagreement with the principles behind the legislation relating to breathalyser testing, but is concerned with its administration . . . we advise that any person required to take the test and who believes himself to be not guilty, should insist on having a blood test.'

BUGGING DEVICES

CM. 17.9.69.

'That this Council maintains that bugging devices shall be outlawed except for official investigations involving National Security and after authorisation has been obtained from a Supreme Court Judge acting on sworn evidence, and that evidence obtained by bugging should be inadmissible in Court.'

CENSORSHIP

Annual General Meeting (October 1969).

'That the Council resolve all forms of censorship hitherto applicable be abolished.'

CENSORSHIP (THEATRES)

CM. 20.8.69.

'That the Committee recommend to the Chief Secretary that all sections of the Theatres and Public Halls Act wherein power is given to the Chief Secretary to prohibit or regulate the performance of any public entertainment based on the content of such entertainment shall be deleted from that Act: That the regulations made pursuant to the Theatres and Public Halls Act which purport to be based upon fire danger and restrict the use of cinematograph film be investigated to determine whether such regulations are reasonable in regard to the use of modern film which has low fire danger.'

PUBLIC SERVANTS' POLITICAL RIGHTS

Letter to press quoted in Civil Liberty (April 1969).

'The Council for Civil Liberties believes that the large body of the Australian work force employed in the Public Service should generally have the same rights of political criticism and activity as those employed in private enterprise.'

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Letter to Minister for Labour and National Service, quoted in Newsletter No.10 (February 1969).

'In our opinion the determination of the fact whether or not a young man holds such a (conscientious belief requires a wider range of experiences, views and social contact than can be expected of any single person. This view if adopted in England, where the determination if made by a tribunal of six lay persons, presided over by a county court judge. The members include two trade union representatives and at least two women. While not suggesting that Australia should adopt this formula in toto, we strongly approve the principle of using a tribunal embodying a variety of lay interests and experience. We, therefore, with respect, urge amendment of the Act in order that such cases be heard by a magistrate as chairman of such a tribunal, with the right of appeal to a tribunal of similar constitution under the chairmanship of a district or county court judge.'