1956-09-04 22 1 2 SENATE 53 0 1956-09-04 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMuIIin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. 53 miscellaneous Petitions. Senator McKENNA presented two petitions, one signed by approximately 30,000 citizens, requesting an increase in the rates of pensions paid to the aged, to invalids and to widows, and another signed by 763 pensioners requesting an increase in the rates of pensions paid to the aged and to invalids. Petitions received and read. 53 leave of absence Motion (by Senator McKenna) - by leave - agreed to - That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Devlin on the ground of ill health. 53 miscellaneous 53 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I lay on the table the following paper: - Audit Act - Finance - Treasurer's statement of receipts and expenditure for year 19SS-S6, accompanied by the report of the Auditor-General. 53 Questions 53 53 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate know that a special significance attaches to the date, 2nd September of this year? Does he realize that it has a special significance for himself? Does he know that on that date he established a new parliamentary record? Does he know that on that date he achieved the distinction of serving the longest continuous term in the Senate as Leader of the Government? Does he realize that he eclipsed the previous record of Sir George Pearce, who held that office from February, 1923, to October, 1929, a total of six years eight months and fourteen days? Will the Leader of the Government accept the personal congratulations of the members of the Opposition upon achieving a record? Does he realize that, speaking now from a party view-point, the only consolation that the Opposition derives from a contemplation of the record is the fact that the end of the life of the Government is nearer by six years, eight months and sixteen days? 53 JZI LP 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - I think the Leader of the Opposition should have given notice of that question. It is not very often that he rises to ask a question; few honorable senators ask fewer questions than he does. But, whenever he has risen in the past to ask a question, I have always felt, no matter how courteous he has been - he is always very courteous - that his question was not designed to give me either comfort or pleasure. However, in his question this afternoon, I detect a note of cordiality and goodwill which affords me great pleasure and great comfort. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition finds time to delve as closely as apparently he does into the minute details of history. Some time last year I had occasion to look at the periods of office of various holders of positions in the Senate. Although I cannot be so precise as to give the number of days, I am inclined to agree that the Leader of the Opposition is right. Senator Pearce held the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate for three or four periods, aggregating about thirteen years. Senator Millen held that position, I think, for three periods aggregating about eight years. It has been a great pleasure to me to occupy the position and to hold it continuously for a record period. During that period, we have had many ups and downs and many fights, but permeating our relations there has been, I think, a feeling of mutual goodwill. Our debates have been remarkably and pleasantly free from personal recriminations and personal bitterness. The game has been played hard on occasions, and I hope that it will continue to be played hard, but I trust that we shall continue to play the ball, or the argument, rather than the personality or the man. I appreciate very much the sentiments inherent in the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot offer him any hope that the leadership of the Senate will leave our hands in the foreseeable future. I do not know how long I personally shall hold that office, because that is a matter that will be determined by my leader, the Prime Minister. I hope that if and when I vacate the office it will, pass to one of my colleagues. I say again that I appreciate the very cordial sentiments in the question asked by Senator McKenna. 54 K7A LP 1 0 SPOONER, William Senator SPOONER - by leave - I extend to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O'Sullivan) congratulations from, I hope, both sides of the Senate, on establishing what I think may fairly be called a minor historic record in the records of the Senate. Speaking now on behalf of this side of the chamber only, I want to say that we appreciate very much indeed the action of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in putting his question so nicely and with such obvious good spirit. This is one of those little occasions that make political life more bearable and a little more pleasant. If my colleagues behind me will permit me to do so, I should like to pay a tribute to the Leader of the Government in the Senate from his colleagues in the Ministry. The original team has been reduced by two. The absence of those two members is a matter of regret to us all. I would like to say to the Senate, and to >Senator O'Sullivan in particular, that I know of no happier family than the family of Ministers in the Senate, lt is commonly said around the Cabinet table, "If you hit one Senator Minister, you hit the lot". That is the atmosphere in which we have worked because of the pleasant personality of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the encouragement he has given us. I assure the Leader of the Government, on behalf of Government senators and. I believe, on behalf of the Opposition, that he has made an excellent contribution to the dignity and prestige of the Senate by his unfailing courtesy, consideration, kindliness and friendliness to all of us. I congratulate him upon establishing a record in his term of office, and upon the way in which he has carried out his duties. 54 54 KBU 0 0 WORDSWORTH, Robert Senator WORDSWORTH - I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army by saying that it was reported in the Australian press yesterday that Australia had troops of a battalion strength ready for immediate action overseas if required. Reports in the press to-day state that Egyptian sources have conveyed the impression that an Australian battalion was available for immediate action if negotiations on the Suez Canal broke down. Will the Minister state whether such a statement was made and, if so, what was the statement and who made it? 54 K7A LP 1 0 SPOONER, William Senator SPOONER -I discussed this matter with the Minister for the Army who has informed me, without any reservation at ali, that no such statement was made by him. 54 54 KQQ 0 0 LAUGHT, Keith Senator LAUGHT - By way of preface to a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer, I wish to state that, since the Senate met last, the large reclaimed area on the lower Murray in South Australia known as Jervois has been lost to floods. Many offers of agistment for the 7,000 dairy cows thus displaced have come from farmers and graziers in the Adelaide hills and throughout the south-east of South Australia, but unless the necessary dairy installations and accommodation for those who tend these dairy cows are provided, the eventual dispersal of those herds is almost inescapable. That would bo a serious blow to the Adelaide domestic milk supply. Will the Minister discuss urgently with the Treasurer the possibility of allowing, in the year of expenditure, income tax deductions to land-holders who erect dairy structures and provide accommodation on land made available for the agistment of such dairy cattle? I point out thai during the second world war, depreciation allowances were granted with respect to plant and buildings used and constructed in consequence of emergency war-time conditions. 54 K7A LP 1 0 SPOONER, William Senator SPOONER - I remind the honorable senator that the Government has already informed the South Australian Government that it is prepared to contribute on a ?l-for-?l basis for the relief of cases of hardship resulting from the floods. It has also informed the South Australian Government that it would be prepared to contribute towards the rehabilitation of roads. &c, provided the South Australian Government submitted the case properly. If I understood the honorable senator's question correctly, he is suggesting assistance in a third category to cover the replacement or construction of buildings for dairy herds that may be dispersed. As the honorable senator's question was asked without notice, I can only give him an assurance that I shall take the matter up with the Treasurer and ascertain his views about it. 55 55 K6W 0 0 COLE, George Senator COLE - By way of preface to my question, which is directed to the Minister for the Navy, may I state that there is grave concern among employees of the naval dockyards at Garden Island, New South Wales, and Williamstown, Victoria, following the receipt by many of them of notices of dismissal. Will the Minister give consideration to the withdrawal of these notices in view of the gravity of the international situation, which makes the dispersal of skilled dockyard staffs at the present time undesirable from a defence and security viewpoint, and the possibility that staffs may be kept at full strength by permitting the dockyards to accept private shipbuilding orders and general repair work? 55 JZI LP 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - The prospect of unemployment is not pleasing to anybody, whether he be a member of the Government parties or the Opposition; but it should be borne in mind that from all quarters, including quarters represented by Senator Cole, the Opposition and the Government parties, there have been demands for the reduction of defence expenditure. If less money is spent, then there must be less employment. However, I assure the honorable senator that the money available for expenditure by the Department of the Navy will be spent in a way that will preserve the maximum of employment and ensure that the incidence of unemployment shall be as small as possible. 55 K6W 0 0 COLE, George Senator Cole - What is the possibility of the dockyards engaging in private shipbuilding work? 55 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - Any such work will have to be paid for. 55 55 KAW 0 0 WEDGWOOD, Ivy Senator WEDGWOOD - Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Territories been directed to a report from Port Moresby that Public Works Department carpenters are building special accommodation for a woman at the Bomana gaol? Has an appeal been lodged on behalf of this person, and if so has bail been refused? If no appeal is pending and the Bomana gaol has accommodation only for native prisoners and for a few male Europeans, will the Minister please explain why the prisoner was not moved to the mainland for detention? 55 JQP CP 0 0 COOPER, Walter Senator COOPER - I cannot answer the honorable senator's question immediately, but I assure her that I shall get in touch with the Minister for Territories and have the whole matter investigated and a reply furnished to the honorable senator as soon as possible. 55 55 K0N 0 0 ARNOLD, James Senator ARNOLD - My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. In view of the continued dismissals of miners on the northern coalfields, will the Minister make a statement about the prospects of employment in the coalmining industry, with particular reference to the northern coalfields? 55 K7A LP 1 0 SPOONER, William Senator SPOONER - I doubt the need for a statement on employment in the coalmining industry. The latest figures that I have show that the total number of employees in the coalmining industry at. 25th August, 1956, was 18,154, which is only about 340 less than the number employed at the end of December. 1955. Coal consumption has fallen somewhat, but the production from underground mines for the 27 weeks to the month of August was only 110,000 tons less than for the corresponding period of last year. That quantity of 110,000 tons has to be measured in relation to the production of 7,369,000 tons. The re-arrangements occurring on the coal-fields are, at least up to this stage, due rather to more efficient production at the mines as a result of their greater mechanization, than to a declining demand for coal. I do not think that I can elaborate that to any great extent. The great trouble in the coal-mining industry has been its lack of mechanization, and ?3.000.000 or ?4,000,000 a year is being spent by colliery proprietors to achieve more efficient production. Greater mechanization, of course, results in a lower number of employees, but the Government is watching the position from week to week. A committee is concentrating on this matter, and as men are cavilled out at mines, every care is taken to offer them employment opportunities elsewhere. I receive figures each week, and I am citing some of them to-day. The latest I have before me are dated the 30th August, and show that only one person was registered for unemployment relief on the whole of the four coal-field areas in New South Wales at that date, but there were sixteen registered for positions in mines. I admit to the honorable senator that that was a most favorable week. I should not like honorable senators to think that it was a normal period. However, this statement illustrates how closely we are keeping in touch with the position and that we are doing all that we can to avoid unnecessary hardship during a process which, obviously, is for the long-term good of the industry. The more the industry is brought up to date and made efficient, the greater is the possibility of increasing the market for coal and of expanding the industry. While these improvements are being made, however, there must be adjustments in employment at the various mines. 56 56 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, and preface it by pointing out that in the United States of America a new anti-polio vaccine is being manufactured under the name of Sabin, which certain medical authorities consider may prove to have more lasting immunizing qualities than the present vaccine Salk. Will the Minister have this report investigated, and if necessary, send an appropriate medical officer overseas to investigate Sabin vaccine? 56 JQP CP 0 0 COOPER, Walter Senator COOPER - I can say, on behalf of the Minister for Health, that Salk vaccine, which has been manufactured and used in Australia for some months, has had very considerable success. I assure the honorable senator that I will bring to the notice of the Minister for Health his statement concerning the new vaccine he has mentioned. I shall ask, the Minister to furnish a report on what Sabin vaccine is and whether it is proving more successful than Salk vaccine. 56 56 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - I direct a question to the Leader of the Government concerning press statements to the effect that troops are being prepared to go overseas, if necessary, in connexion with the Suez Canal dispute. The Government denies having authorized these reports, and I accept its denial, but has the Leader of the Government made any effort to ascertain who isresponsible for making them? Will the Minister take the necessary action to prevent the publication of such statements, particularly if they are without foundation, because they could be regarded as a direct act of sabotage against the Prime Minister who is at present engaged on a very difficult mission, and could also damage Australia'sgood name and friendly relations with other countries? 56 JZI LP 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - The making of inquiries as suggested by the honorable senator would be a matter for the acting, head of the Government rather than for me as Leader of the Senate. I have no doubt that Sir Arthur Fadden has already madeinvestigations into the false report mentioned by the honorable senator. 56 56 K2S 0 0 ROBERTSON, Agnes Senator ROBERTSON - My questions are directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Following the suspension of a pilot, Captain James Wood, of Woods Airways, Perth, from flying between Perth and Rottnest Island, because of a stated unsafe landing strip, can the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate what measures are necessary to ensure safety for passengers landing on and leaving this island strip? When will the necessary alterations be made? What will be the approximate cost of such alterations? 56 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - The incident to which the honorable senator has referred in her question has caused considerable public interest in Western Australia. I shall get a full statement from my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, and let the honorable senator have it. 56 56 K1T 0 0 BENN, Archibald Senator BENN - Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry cause to be investigated reports to the effect that potatoes are being cornered in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane by middlemen, profiteers and racketeers? Will he also investigate the report that potatoes are being cornered in Melbourne in order that they can be released at an excess, price in that city during the Olympic Games? 57 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - I am, of course, aware of the importance of the question in that there is a shortage of potatoes in the cities mentioned and that prices have been exorbitant. I am not too sure whether this is a matter for the Minister for Primary Industry whom I represent. There are many aspects of it, some of them of a purely marketing nature, which might more appropriately be a subject for investigation in the States and cities concerned. However, I shall consult with my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, and ascertain if there is anything he can say which might throw a little light on the situation. 57 57 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. It has reference to the Committee of Inquiry into the Stevedoring Industry which was constituted under the chairmanship of Mr. J. B. Tait in November, 1954. It will be remembered that the two other members who sat on that committee with the chairman were Mr. J. Shortell and Mr. F. J. R. Gibson. I ask the Minister whether the report is correct that those two men have been appointed to the new stevedoring industry authority. If so, was the report, the task of the committee, completed at the date of the appointments of these two men? If not, is it expected that those two gentlemen will participate in the completion of the report? 57 K7A LP 1 0 SPOONER, William Senator SPOONER - It is correct that those two gentlemen have been appointed to the commission. I am sorry that I cannot answer the honorable senator's other questions. I ask that they be put on notice. 57 57 K6P 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator BROWN - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs the following questions: - Is it a fact that Russia, last year, made an offer to Egypt to finance the building of the Aswan high dam project? Did the United States of America and Great Britain make arrangements to lend money to Egypt for the same purpose? Was the latter offer withdrawn, and, if so, why? I do not think the Minister will be able to answer my last question. If the offer were withdrawn, did that fact influence or force Egypt to nationalize the Suez Canal in order to raise funds for building the dam? 57 JZI LP 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - The questions raised by the honorable senator are certainly of great international interest, but not one of the four questions asked by him comes within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. Therefore, I am not in a position to give him a factual answer to them, great as the interest inherent in them may be. 57 57 K7Y 0 0 TANGNEY, Dorothy Senator TANGNEY - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Is he aware of the great hardship being experienced by age pensioners and their wives in cases when the wives have not reached the pensionable age, so that both are forced to exist on a pension that is not really adequate for one? Will the Minister consider granting a pension to the wife of an age pensioner when the wife is over 50 years of age as it is both impracticable and undesirable for her to obtain employment at that age? 57 K7A LP 1 0 SPOONER, William Senator SPOONER - The age at which pensions should become payable has been considered from time to time by governments of different political colours. The present formula provides that a female becomes eligible for a pension at an age five years younger than the age at which a male becomes eligible. I think it is the general opinion that that is a reasonable arrangement, and it is one which this Government believes should be continued. 57 57 KAW 0 0 WEDGWOOD, Ivy Senator WEDGWOOD asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - Has the Minister seen the figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician in relation to the disparity between the numbers of Italians and British nationals entering this country? Is it a fact that, in the quarter ended the 31st March, the net increase of Italian nationals was 9,460 compared with a net increase 7,119 British nationals? 57 JZY LP 0 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - The Minister for Immigration has furnished the following reply: - Yes. It is most misleading to accept the published figures at their face value and it is of the greatest importance that these figures should be correctly interpreted. Failure to realize this has led to many misconceptions in the past. The term "permanent arrivals" as used by the Commonwealth Statistician includes all those people coming to Australia for the first time and those Australians who have been abroad for a year or longer who intend to remain in Australia for twelve months or more, irrespective of their eventual intentions. Similarly, " permanent departures " cover, in addition to those persons who do not intend returning to Australia, all persons who have been in Australia for twelve months or more and who are leaving Australia with the intention of being away twelve months or more. The number of Australians departing for periods of twelve months or more in any one quarter, for a variety of reasons, does not necessarily balance the number shown as returning in the same period. In the actual period under consideration Australians departing for twelve months or more exceeded Australians returning after absences of twelve months or more by more than 2 1/2 to 1. The result was obviously an artificially low British net migration figure. Thus figures provided by the Commonwealth Statistician for the March quarter show that British permanent arrivals numbered 15,932 and Italian permanent arrivals 10,048. Permanent departures " during the quarter were 8,813 in the case of British and S88 in the case of Italians, leaving a rather spurious " net permanent migration" figure of 7,119 British and 9,460 Italians. Since the great majority of Australian residents leaving for trips abroad would be British subjects, it is clear that the figures for British " permanent departures ", according to the Commonwealth Statistician's definition, under ordinary circumstances, would be much higher than the figure for " permanent departures " of other nationalities. I have already mentioned that during the January-March, 1956, quarter the Italian permanent departures figure was 588 as opposed to the nominal British permanent departures figure of 8,813. However, of the 8,813 British so-called " permanent departures " during the period, Australian residents going abroad for more than twelve months numbered 5,857 while temporary visitors to Australia departing after visits of more than twelve months numbered 940. The balance, 2,016, would be the " real " British permanent departure figure, and this number would include - (a) permanent departures to Papua and New Guinea which are akin to movements from one part of Australia to another; (b) permanent departures to New Zealand; (c) Australian-born citizens going abroad; and (d) a small number only of pre- and post-war migrants. By taking the above points into consideration a much more favorable picture is revealed of the net proportion of British to Italian migrants in the January-March figure. In essence the position is that the British net permanent migration figure is deflated by the large numbers of Australians going abroad for more than twelve months, while the net permanent migration figures for other nationalities, including Italians, are obviously not so deflated. Recently, as the honorable senator will be aware, certain alterations were made in the categories of southern Europeans, including Italians, eligible for migration, the result of which will be a reduction in the numbers coming forward from this area in the future. Figures released by the United Kingdom Board of Trade show that in the post-war period until June, 1955 (the latest date for which such figures are available) total migration to Australia from the United Kingdom has been only slightly below the combined total going to the three other main British-receiving countries - Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. For the latest available period, the six months ended June, 1955, these figures indicate that Australia received 48.1 per cent, of such movement compared with - These figures speak for themselves, particularly having regard to the fact that, in common with New Zealand, Australia is at a disadvantage compared with the other countries because of its greater distance from the United Kingdom. Australia is taking as many migrants from the United Kingdom as possible at the present time and numbers are limited only by availability of suitable accommodation. By far the greater percentage of migrants from the United Kingdom have gone to accommodation provided by friends and relatives under personal nomination arrangements. It is the Government's policy to encourage migration from the United Kingdom in the greatest possible numbers, lt more Australian residents could be induced to nominate persons living in the United Kingdom, it follows that it would be possible numbers. If more Australian residents The essential factor in such nominations is, oi course, the provision of accommodation. In addition as many families as possible are brought out under the Commonwealth Nomination Scheme, in which case accommodation is provided under government arrangements in the first instance. However, the number of such migrants is limited by the availability of hostel accommodation. The position is, therefore, that whilst the policy of the Government is to ensure the maximum British intake within the overall immigrat ion programme this intake is to a large extent governed by the availability of accomm odation both private and government arranged, which can be provided for them. At the present time the Government is taking full advantage of the high rate of applications for migration to Australia from the United Kingdom by using all suitable shipping and accommodation available. Every available berth on commercial shipping lines serving Australia from the United Kingdom is at present fully booked for British migrants. In addition, the "New Australia ", which we own with the British Government, is being used exclusively for the transport of migrants from the United Kingdom. We have, moreover, recently experimented with chartered foreign shipping in order to increase our British intake. As further evidence of the Government's desire to do all in its power to attract and assist migrants from the United Kingdom, I should mention that we pay about 85 per cent, of the fare of each assisted migrant from the United Kingdom compared with 21 per cent, of the fares of assisted migrants from other areas. Finally, it is of interest to note that of the 1,031,308 permanent arrivals Australia has received between October, 194S, and December, 1955, 496,614 ur 48.2 per cent, were of British nationality, a clear indication of the Government's determination to foster and maintain the predominantly British character of the Australian population. 59 59 K5X 0 0 SHEEHAN, James Senator SHEEHAN asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - Will the Minister advise the Senate whether the heavy equipment used on the St. Mary's project is owned by Utah Construction (Australia) or is rented? If rented, will the Minister advise from whom, and on what terms and conditions? ls the cost of procuring spare parts for the heavy equipment paid for by the Government, or by the owners or lessees? Are the Government vehicles at this project used exclusively for purposes of the project or are they used for any other purposes? If used for other purposes, how is the purchase price and maintenance cost of such vehicles allocated? Is the physical work on the St. Mary's project in advance of the architect's plans; if so, for what reason? Is the firm of A. C. Hyistendahl and Associates still connected with the project? If not, for what reason did they cease their connexion? 59 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - The Minister for Defence Production has supplied the following answers: - Most of the equipment is owned by Utah Australia Limited. Most recent figures available disclose that 26 items of equipment were on rental from outside parties compared with 57 from Utah. The existing " Job Instructions " provide that Utah (Australia) Limited will endeavour to secure equipment at the lowest possible price in accordance with the spirit and letter of agreed purchasing procedures. Rental rates and conditions are subject to approval by the Central Control Agency. In addition to Utah, the following parties are supplying equipment: - Thiess Brothers Proprietary Limite.1, George-street, Sydney; Tutt Bryant Proprietary Limited, South-street, Rydalmere; Cleary Brothers, Kiama; Agriplan Proprietary Limited, Pitt-street, Sydney; Braybon Brothers Proprietary Limite.1, Washington-street, Sydney; Neuchate Asphalt Company, George-street, Sydney; Bitu-' minous Pavements Proprietary Limited, Prospect: S. Hassaratti, Roseberry-road, Killara: M. Posner. Clark-street, Berala: A. Brien, High-street, Strathfield; E. W. Fitzgerald, Stuart-street, Burwood. The contractor purchases the spare parts on behalf of the Commonwealth at job cost. One of the conditions of hire of plant is that the cost of major overhauls will be borne by the hirers. All overhauls are done in the project workshops and the cost of major overhauls, including parts, is recovered from the hirers. Normal maintenance is a job cost. The government vehicles on the joh are provided for exclusive use on the project. The use of vehicles is controlled by "Job Instructions" which provide that " no personal use of automobiles or overnight use of automobiles will be permitted except with the expressed prior approval of the Central Control Agency ". No approvals have been granted for the private use of vehicles. The "Job Instructions " provide a schedule of rates to be charged if the private use of automobiles is approved. These rates are the same as those approved by the Public Service Board for cases where officers of the Public Service use their own cars on departmental business. The architect who is controlling this project advises that the answer is " No ". A. C. Hyistendahl and Associates were employed by the architects for the project as a control and expediting agency. Their association with the project ceased at 31st May, 1956. They were employed by the architect, not by the Government. 59 miscellaneous Tenth Report. Debate resumed from 22nd May (vide page 851), on motion by Senator Arnold - That the report be printed. 59 KTN Tasmania Leader of the Opposition 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA . - The motion before the Senate deals with the tenth report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. It was directed at achieving a particular purpose. That purpose has been accomplished, but the mere fact that that is so would not justify passing by this report. That is true for two reasons. In the first place, the committee should be congratulated upon the work it has done and the report it has submitted. It has shown very great care, has displayed great industry, and has presented one of the most complete and succinct reports of the kind that I have ever read. Attached to it are notes of evidence and documents with which the committee was concerned. However, I think there is another reason why I should have something to say in this chamber on the exercise of the power of delegated legislation. After all is said and done, that is an enormous power and, as I see the position, there is a responsibility upon every individual member of this Parliament to satisfy himself that that power is not abused. It is capable of very great abuse, and I acknowledge the personal responsibility that rests on me in the matter. My great consolation and relief is that there is such a body as the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances set up by the Senate, and that it is the duty of that committee to examine the mass of regulations and ordinances that are passed from time to time, and of which the Senate receives notification. It is rather surprising that the Senate alone should have established such a body. No other body in the Parliament is responsible for that particular work. I should have thought that that might well have been the work of a joint committee of the two Houses. Having regard to the very good work that this committee does, I am rather loath to suggest that an alteration should be made, but perhaps I may be permitted to suggest that it is surprising that the House of Representatives has no comparable body charged with a similar duty. It may be that representatives of that chamber, like myself, are content to leave the matter to the Senate committee. The procedure of that committee, as I understand it, is that, with each regulation and ordinance, there is circulated a memorandum from the relevant department explaining the purpose of the regulation. That is then submitted to an independent private legal advisor to the committee, who is retained and paid from government funds. Then the committee itself addresses its mind to a consideration of the regulation and the reports before it. The functions of the committee are detailed on the first page of its report, which is now before the Senate. It is pointed out that since 1932, the practice of the committee has been to address itself to four main aspects. They are worth repeating. It scrutinizes regulations and ordinances to ascertain, first, that they are in accordance with the statute that authorizes their making; second, that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; third, that they do not make the rights and liberties of citizens unduly dependent on administrative rather than judicial decision; and, finally, that they are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation that should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. I should like to say a few words on the subject-matter of the report itself. The report became necessary in relation to Statutory Rule No. 92 of 1955. The detailed regulation is No. 515. The broad effect of the regulation was to provide that, if the Commonwealth suffered loss or damage or expense or there was a deficiency in stores or material in the Royal Australian Air Force, and the Air Board considered that the loss or damage was attributable to a fault on the part of one of the members of the Royal Australian Air Force, the member should be liable to pay to the Commonwealth the amount of damage as determined by the Air Board, or such amount as the Air Board considered fit. That power of the Air Board Was delegated, in turn, to an officer of the board and his decision, when made, was reviewable by either a senior officer or by the Air Board itself. That was the beginning and the end of the matter. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee, reviewing that particular regulation purporting to be made under the Air Force Act, had this to say in paragraph 4. of the report that is now before the Senate - Having considered the regulation, the committee is of the opinion - that the regulation is not authorized by the Act. That, of course, is a fundamental defect, an?l enough to bring the regulation down, not only in the Parliament but in a court of law. That first finding of the committee is a clear indication of the need for the existence of a body such as this. The second finding in paragraph 4 was - that the Regulation includes provisions for substantial alterations of the law appropriate only to enactment (if at all) by Parliament.- It is a substantive matter, not an incidental or ancillary matter and, according to the proposition covered by the regulation, should have been dealt with substantively by the Parliament. The third finding of the committee has a number of sub-headings, and it states - That the Regulation authorizes deductions from a member's pay - not only for deficiency of stores and materials but also for third party claims. If, through the action of an officer of the Royal Australian Air Force, a third party suffered injury, damage or loss and proceeded to claim against the Commonwealth - which he might do and it could be a claim for expensive damages - then the regulation purports to enable that amount to be mulcted from the offending Royal Australian Air Force member. The regulation also authorizes deductions from a member's pay - of unlimited amounts, without appeal, without providing the member with any procedure (such as court martial or civil court action) to be heard, and without protecting any proportion of the member's periodical pay. Then there is an extraordinary comment - "Notwithstanding that the Air Force Act specifically indicates that section 58 of the Defence Act is to continue to apply to the Air Force." The significance of that comment is that section 58 of the Defence Act therein incorporated in the Air Force Act provides that if any such situation arises involving loss or damage of the nature I have indicated, the commanding officer may recover such loss from the responsible member or officer only by action in a court of law. Despite the fact that that provision was deemed to be incorporated in the Air Force Act, regulation 515 managed to get by the Executive Council. The chairman of the committee that we are discussing very properly moved in this Senate that the regulation be disallowed. That motion was not proceeded with for the very good reason that the Government, having before it the result of the investigations of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, very properly cancelled and withdrew the regulation. So, in that particular instance, the committee completely achieved its purpose. I believe that the report of the committee serves a wider purpose of directing attention to the need on the part of Ministers, and in particular on the part of the departments behind them, to advert to the principles that have been broken, as this committee has shown so clearly. I congratulate the committee upon its work, and I am grateful to the Senate for establishing such a body and to the committee itself for the work that it has done. As Leader of the Opposition I rest much more assured knowing that such a body is charged with responsibility in this matter, and is doing its work so effectively. All honorable senators should feel indebted to the members of the committee for their work. The thought has occurred to me that only on one prior occasion that I remember, during the period that I have been a member of this Senate, was any acute attention given to this question of the power to make delegated legislation. In 1944, towards the end of World War II., the Curtin Labour Government appointed a regulations advisory committee comprising Mr. A. D. Fraser, a member of the House of Representatives, as chairman, Mr. David Maughan, Mr. J. V. Barry - now Mr. Justice Barry of the Supreme Court of Victoria - and Dr. Frank Louat of the Sydney Bar. The three last-named gentlemen were very distinguished members of the legal profession. That committee was appointed for the main purpose of reviewing regulations made under the National Security Act, and to tender advice to the Government about what alterations might properly be made. It is relevant to the motion to indicate that they addressed themselves to three main matters, namely, the averment and onus of proof provisions - which honorable senators will remember formed a large part of the National Security Regulations - the use of answers obtained by compulsory interrogation, and the desirability of establishing reviewing committees. In my view those three matters fall completely and peculiarly within the jurisdiction of our own Senate standing committee, and I thought it might be as well to advert to the principles relating to those matters that were enunciated in the first report of the reviewing committee which was dated15th July, 1944. That committee submitted some six or seven reports in all, but this was the first and most important, and it was made public. Quite a number of the other reports were not made public. By reason of the principles enunciated here it might interest honorable senators and members of our own committee particularly, if I advert briefly to what was stated in that report. Paragraph 5 of the report reads - The committee accepts as fundamental the principles stated by Lord Sankey, Lord Chancellor, in his speech in Woolmington v. the Director of Public Prosecutions (35 A.C. 462) . . . where he said, "Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt . . subject . . . to any . . . statutory exception.If at the end of and on the whole of the case there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner . . . the prosecution has not made out a case and the prisoner is entitled to acquittal." Paragraph 6 reads - In order to apply this principle correctly, however, the observations of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (" History of the Criminal Law", Vol. 1, page 354) should be borne in mind, namely - " In the present day the rule that a man is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty is carried out in all its consequences. The plea of not guilty puts everything in issue, and the prosecutor has to prove everything that he alleges from the very beginning. If it be asked why an accused person is presumed to be innocent, I think the true answer is, not that the presumption is probably true, but that society in the present day is so much stronger than the individual, and is capable of inflicting so very much more harm on the individual than the individual as a rule can inflict upon society, that it can afford to be generous. It is, however, a question of degree, varying according to time and place, how far this generosity can or ought to be carried." Paragraph 8 reads - The committee is of opinion accordingly that it is a principle to be departed from only in the most exceptional cases, that the onus, initial and final, of establishing the ingredients of an offence should rest upon the prosecution. Then paragraph 9 reads - It appears proper, however, and in no way inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the common law which have been devised for the protection of the community, that in respect of certain matters it should be permissible for the prosecutor to discharge the onus of introducing evidence by the use of the procedural device known as the " averment ". These are - where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not in itself relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant . where the matter in question relates to conduct of the defendant alleged to constitute an ingredient in the offence charged and - such matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant; and it is not reasonably practicable for the prosecutor to lead evidence to establish such matter. Unless the subject-matter can be shown to fall within either of these categories, however, the averment procedure should be resorted to only in a case where - it is clear beyond doubt that the interests of the community require it; and adequate safeguards are provided against any likelihood of administrative misuse. The committee then pointed out that each case has to be examined in its context, on its merits, and in the light of those principles that have been enunciated. It dealt at great length with individual national security regulations, and it made many proposals for the amendment of regulations relating to the averment clause, including its complete deletion in many cases. It recommended the abolition of the averment clause in the tea control regulations but recommended its retention in the prices control regulations. If any honorable senator is interested to ascertain why the distinction was drawn between the two cases, he might follow the matter up in the report. I believe that what 1 am putting now has certain relevant considerations for the committee in particular, and the Senate in general. It doss no harm to refresh our minds in this way about the principles underlying regulations and ordinances. At page 8 of the report the committee made an interesting recommendation in subparagraph (viii) in these terms - Accordingly the Committee recommends that a proviso beadded to the regulation in or to the effect of the following terms: - " Provided that no averment shall be made unless the Crown Solicitor, the Assistant Crown Solicitor or a Deputy Crown Solicitor is satisfied that such averment is reasonably necessary for the due administration of justice and will not impose hardship upon or occasion injustice to the defendant." The committee there sought to assure that somebody of judicial mind, legal training and responsible position would make a declaration in the terms recommended by the committee. I should say that it is a very salutory safeguard. Two other matters are referred to briefly in this report. One deals with the use of answers in circumstances where they have been compulsorily obtained.I shall read a brief extract from that topic from page 19 of the report. It is as follows: - The Committee recognizes that it may be necessary and legitimate to require a person to produce accounts, books or documents, or to make a return, and to use any of such material, subject to the ordinary rules as to admissability, in proceedings against him. Powers of compulsory questioning, however, should be employed only for administrative purposes. Statements or disclosures mad by any person who is by virtue of any regulation required to answer any question or furnish any information (unless that information consists of books, accounts or documents or a return which he is required to make under the Regulations) should not, except in proceedings for perjury involved in such statement, or for making a wilfully false answer, or for refusal or failure to answer, be admissable against him in civil or criminal proceedings in any court. The committee concludes- The Committee recommends that either by addition to the regulations containing these powers, or by a regulation of generalapplication, provision should be made to protect in the manner indicated persons compelled under penalty to answer. As the position of the persons so interrogated would then be adequately protected, it would be proper to provide that he shall be not excused from answering on the ground that his answer might tend to incriminate him. The final matter with which the committee deals was the third one to which I adverted earlier, the question of the appointment of reviewing authorities. Paragraph 22 of the report is as follows: - The Committee has given careful consideration to the problem of establishing effective means of ensuring that some method of review shall be open to citizens affected by the exercise of administrative discretion. Et concludes with this comment - Each department which discharges the function of granting consents, licences, or permits to carry on businesses, should have associated with it a Reviewing Authority. That Reviewing Authority should consist of three members, with appropriate qualifications, who should be appointed by, and be directly responsible to the Minister and should hold office for a fixed period. The Reviewing Authority should function generally, however, and should not be brought into existence merely to deal with particular instances. With some degree of apology to the Senate I have raised these matters, but I have done so' because they deal with vital principles with which our own committee is concerned from time to time. I think it is well that now and again these principles should be given an airing, and some discussion promoted on the matters relating to them. For the reasons I have given, I most cordially support the motion that the committee's report be printed. 63 KQQ South Australia 0 0 LAUGHT, Keith Senator LAUGHT . - I support the motion, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for the extensive survey he has given of the paper, and also for his excursion into the examination of the report ot the Regulations Advisory Committee of 1944. The honorable senator need, not apologize to the Senate for doing so, because his remarks were apposite. At this time, it is well that the Senate should give some consideration to such questions as are raised by the report before the Senate, and also to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. The Senate is the place for discussions such as the present one. I disagree with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a joint committee would possibly be better for the consideration of regulations and ordinances. I am inclined to think that the Senate committee is the better body, and I am not alarmed at the fact that there is not a similar committee in the House of Representatives. I regard the House of Representatives more as the Government House - that is, the House which is very close to three-quarters of the Ministry, whereas the Senate is the chamber more removed from the Ministry, lt is appropriate that there should be a more judicial consideration of regulations without pressure from Ministers, and such consideration can best be given by a Senate committee rather than by a joint committee. A joint committee, if it followed the usual pattern, would have twice as many members from the House of Representatives as from the Senate. Consequently, 1 disagree, in this mild manner, with the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. Before I pass to a consideration of tha report, let mc say that since I have been a member of this committee I have appreciated its approach to the work before it. That approach has been on entirely non-party lines. It has been encouraged by the enthusiasm of the members for the task in hand, and also by the enthusiasm of Mr. Bullock, the secretary of the committee, in obtaining details required by the committee. The report before the Senate is unique in that it contains a transcript of evidence. I understand that that is a rare feature, but the committee, in its wisdom, when dealing with this Air Force regulation, felt that it was such an important matter that evidence of the - greatest value should be sought - that is, sworn evidence, and that it should be reported verbatim. As a consequence, the Senate has before it the sworn evidence of high-ranking civil servants in connexion with this regulation. I shall not trespass on the time of the Senate by traversing the grounds laid down by Senator McKenna as to the functions of the committee, because I want to stress some of the aspects of the evidence which may be of interest to honorable senators. Before doing so I point out that this Air Force regulation, as we discovered, had been evolved after many years of consideration. Apparently, some fifteen years ago the Treasury of the day indicated that a regulation should be made somewhat along the lines of that which was eventually made. The Army set its face against making such a regulation, but I understand that the Air Force and the Navy did make the regulations that are the subject of this report. As a result of the committee's report the Air Force has withdrawn its regulation but the Department of the Army has not yet withdrawn a similar regulation. As the Minister for the Navy (Senator O'sullivan) is now seated at the table, I remind him that the committee is no doubt watching for the withdrawal of the Navy regulation as it is along the same lines as that of the Air Force. The committee feels that a wrong approach to the matter has been made by this Government and preceding governments, and I feel that I should invite the attention of the Senate to certain sections of the evidence which the committee took. I direct attention, first, to the evidence of Mr. Ewens, the acting Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, to be found at pages 44 and 45 of the record. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) explained in his remarks, the question at issue was whether the regula tion promulgated by the Air Board conflicted with a statute of this Parliament, namely, section 58 of the Defence Act. During the inquiry Senator Wright asked Mr. Ewens, the chief legal man at the disposal of the Government, the following question: - When the act says that section 58 of the act shall, subject to this act, continue to apply in relation to the Air Force, it is then your view, that, by virtue of that expression, it would be competent for the Executive to make regulations under the Air Force Act which would have the effect of completely negativing section 58? That means a regulation completely negativing the words of this Parliament. The answer given by Mr. Ewens was - Yes. I think that is perfectly clear from the act. That rather staggered the committee, that it would be possible for a Minister to cause regulations to be made which would completely negative a most important section of an act. Senator Wright came back to the same subject on page 45 of the record. He asked - And you would regard it as competent for a regulation to be made to this effect: " Section fifty-eight of the Defence Act shall not apply? " The answer was - I think there are plenty of Air Force regulations which say that. Senator Wright then continued ; I am not concerned with that. You would regard it as competent for a regulation to say that section 58 of the Defence Act would not apply? The answer was - Yes, clearly. That is rather frightening. 1 think it is important that the Senate should have placed before it the view of this trained adviser of the Government on the tremendous importance of a regulation made by a civil servant as against the sanctity, if I may put it that way, of a section of an act made by this parliament. Honorable senators will find this transcript of evidence worth reading because of the revealing facts that have been brought out. I do not, at this stage, venture to make a suggestion as to whether Mr. Ewens is right or wrong, but the fact is that there is in evidence those words of his to which great weight should be given. I pass to another matter of somewhat less importance but which, nevertheless, is a challenge to the Government with regard to its legal services. It is apparent that there is tremendous pressure from time to time on the Crown Law Department and the Parliamentary Draftsman. The question arises as to why, when this regulation was promulgated, there was not included in it the power for some aggrieved person to appeal. Bit by bit it came out that the full operation of the regulation was in the process of being drafted. Mr. Ewens was quite frank. He said that the position was that his officers were not able to proceed- with the drafting immediately they received instructions. Then he disclosed that at the present time it takes about two months to proceed with the drafting because they have not anything like their authorized staff. He said it was almost impossible to get a suitable man to do this sort of work, that it takes years of training and they have not been able to get them for that reason. So, we find, thai right at this crucial point in our legislative machinery there is lack of trained staff. Unfortunately, the Attorney-General is not in the chamber at the moment, but I am sure that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) will take this matter up urgently with the Parliamentary Draftsman and his colleagues to see that those officers who advise on these important matters, have an adequate trained staff. One of the great needs in Australia ar the present time is to be able clearly to express legislative matters and regulations because the Australian community is developing to such an extent that a clear statement of these things is necessary. Long delays, because of lack of trained staff, should not be countenanced. It is the responsibility of the Government to make this trained staff available or, if necessary, to establish a small section of the Law School of Australia, possibly at the National University, for the training of adequate staff. Only the other day we were confronted with the estate duty regulations. This Senate, three years ago, passed an important amendment to the Estate Duty Act increasing the exemption from ?2,000 to ?5,000 in cases where the estate went to a widow, widower or a member of the family, and from ?1,000 to ?2,500 when the estate went to others. This Senate said that that exemption was to be made, lt was only during the course of the last parliamentary vacation that regulations were promulgated giving effect to that amendment. Consequently, there is a lag in the promulgation of regulations. As I have said, the reason for this lag may well be that sufficient staff for the purpose is not available. Surely, there can be no other answer, because the general public is entitled to relief from the furnishing of estate duty returns when this Parliament has lifted the exemption in such a remarkable way. Yet, the regulations have been promulgated only during the last few months, and possibly they are at this moment lying on the table of the Senate. Therefore, 1 consider that the reading of this report should be a rewarding experience to those members of the Senate who are able to read it; they will see that some very important functions of the executive should be carefully looked at. Accordingly, I support the motion, and 1 hope that the report, in its printed form, will be read by all members of the Senate. 65 K3R QUEENSLAND ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE . - Before commenting on the contents of the report, I should like to make some general observations on the subject of subordinate legislation. The separation of powers in our parliamentary democracy is not, perhaps, commonly understood. We aver that we have a separation of the executive, the administration and the judiciary, but under our parliamentary system the separation is not so absolute as might be believed. In view of the modern development of the parliamentary institution, and the increasing importance of intervention by government in the business life of the community, perhaps that is just as well. In the United States of America, an attempt was made in the writing of the American constitution to make the separation complete. It is an interesting historical fact that, theoretically, the American constitution rested upon the treatise of a Frenchman name Montesquieu, who had studied the British system, but had completly misconceived the separation of powers. In turn, this treatise was translated into the American constitutional system. Even to-day, in Great Britain, the separation of powers is by no means complete. For example, the House of Lords is, at the one time, a political body, a parliamentary body, and at the same time, through one of its committees, a part of the judicial system of Great Britain. Furthermore, it will be seen that, in other circumstances, the courts of justice, by the exercise of their prerogative, interfere as it were, and intervene in the work of administrative tribunals. Similarly, the Crown still comes in, in a very intimate way, through the system of parliamentary government. Actually, the separation of powers is not nearly so complete as many people believe from the treatise of Montesquieu. Prior to the industrial revolution in Great Britain, the constitution and the functioning of Parliament were characterized by aloofness. Only major matters were considered fit and proper subjects for parliamentary scrutiny and attention, and there was little or no intervention by the Parliament in ordinary community life. But, with the growth of industrial power, and the arising from the industrial revolution of conditions that made the intervention of the Parliament more and more necessary, there was a major transition in the manner of thinking. One may read in the report of a select committee of the British House of Commons on Ministers' powers, a brilliant summary of the development that took place. The committee was under the chairmanship of Lord Donoughmore and many notable persons connected with British jurisprudence, including Sir William Holdsworth, served on it. The trend towards governmental intervention in community life is summed up in these words - The most distinctive indication of the change of outlook of the government of this country in recent years has been its growing preoccupation, irrespective of party, with the management of the' life of the people. A study of the Statute-book will show how profoundly the conception of the function of government has altered. Parliament finds itself increasingly engaged in legislation which has for ils conscious aim the regulation of the day-to-day affairs of the community, and now intervenes in matters formerly thought to be entirely outside its scope. This new orientation has its dangers as well as its merits. Between liberty and government there is an age-long conflict. lt is of vital importance that the new policy, while truly promoting liberty by securing better conditions of life for the people of this country, should not, in its zeal for interference, deprive them of their initiative and .independence which are the nation's most valuable assets. That is a succinct and complete summary of the new concept of government, and shows how the intervention by parliament in the lives of the people has made for the gradual improvement and betterment of their conditions. That, of course, could not be done solely by parliament. Once that kind of necessity is predicated, machinery must be established to meet it, and that was only done by the gradual extension of legislating bodies subordinate to the parliament itself. In that way subordinate legislation found its way into British parliamentary practice and life. There are many instances, going back to the time of- the Tudors, of the king having been empowered by proclamation virtually to repeal statutes. The Statute of Proclamation and the Statute of Wales were examples of subordinate legislation, under which tremendously wide and important powers were conferred. Nevertheless, a tremendous impetus was given to the growth of subordinate legislative bodies by the industrial revolution, culminating in the process referred to in the report by Lord Donoughmore's committee, to which I have referred. When we look at the modern scene, we see that that process has been accelerated and extended. But, just as it gives certain benefits, so does it have certain disadvantages and create certain responsibilities. It is with those responsibilities that the Parliament, particularly this chamber, is concerned, and we see an example in the report before us where this chamber, through one of its committees, has accepted its responsibility, and discharged it to the best of its capacity. The functions of the parliament are distinct from those of a subordinate legislating body. The Parliament of Great Britain, of course, has absolute powers, within the limits of its constitutional abilities. Tt has been clearly said that that parliament can virtually do anything. The report of the committee on Ministers' powers states- Parliament is supreme and its power to legislate is therefore unlimited, lt can do the greatest things: it can do the smallest. It can make general laws for a vast Empire; it can make a particular exception out of them in favour of a particular individual. It can provide - and has in fact provided - for the payment of old-age pensions to all who fulfil the statutory conditions: It could also provide, and has in fact provided, for boiling the Bishop of Rochester's cook to death in oil. That was done in terms of a statute of Henry VIII. which says - It is ordained and enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the said Richard Rose shall be therefore boiled to death without having any advantage of his clergy. The same remedy is not available to us, although we should like to have it in certain circumstances in order to obtain justice against some of our culinary advisers. Subordinate legislative bodies, of course, have no such powers. The report to which 1 have referred goes on to say - But any power delegated by act of Parliament is necessarily a subordinate power because it is limited by the terms of the enactment whereby it is delegated. That is the overall basis on which this committee, operating on behalf of the Senate, has regarded the particular regulation which we are considering. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) pointed out when he opened the debate on this motion on behalf of the Opposition, the four canons of criticism, or prohibitions, on which the committee relies, and which it applies in the event of necessity, have all been virtually breached, so far as I can see, in this case. We can imagine that a regulation or some piece of minor or subsidiary legislation might violate one or, perhaps, two, or three of those canons, but this one appears to have violated all four of them. Senator Laught dealt with one aspect of the committee's report and suggested that the evidence of the Assistant Solicitor-General, Mr. Ewens, throws grave doubts on whether this regulation complies with the terms of the statute under which it purports to be made. I know that Senator Wright, who may speak later in this debate, had firm views on that point during the deliberations of the committee and while it was taking evidence. He queried the actual legality of the regulation under the statute under which it was purporting to have been produced. Mr. Ewens ventured a contrary opinion. Senator Laught has referred to that point. If his opinion is correct, if it was contrary to the statute, then Canon No. 1 has been breached, as is suggested by Senator Wright. If Mr. Ewen's view is correct, if the regulation is completely competent within the statute, then we find that there are violations of the second, third and fourth canons of approach, which are the guides of the committee. If it is competent within the statute, then we find that by regulation it has been repealed - if not in law, certainly in fact - by the passing of what is a very clear and now long-standing statutory provision relating to this question of acts of members of the services occasioning loss or damage. We come then to Canon No. 3, which reads - That they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than upon judicial decisions. Whilst the committee is set up for other purposes it does assess the degree of guilt or culpability and arrives at its decisions in a judicial manner. Again, this is a violation of one of the canons of guidance which the committee adopts. Canon No. 4, which provides that regulations are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment, is violated. I do not know whether honorable senators have examined the report very carefully, but it is one that requires some study in order to arrive at a definite opinion on the matter. It requires a study of the whole case in order to assess the degree to which the rights and liberties of individuals have been transgressed. A person does not cease to be a citizen of this Commonwealth nor is he placed in a very particular category because he happens to be a member of one of the armed services. That person is still entitled to his rights as an ordinary citizen of the Commonwealth, subject to any contractual limitations which he might impose upon himself by taking service with the Crown in one of the services in a particular capacity. Section 58 of the Defence Act, which purports to have been applied to the Air Force Act, says that if a person is entrusted with Commonwealth property and, by his conduct or default, loses it, or damages it, then damage may be recovered against him by action in a court of law. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, if such a thing happens, it is mandatory upon the Crown to follow that type of recovery procedure. Section 58 was specifically carried and applied to the Air Force and, in addition, a regulation virtually in terms of section 58, was written into the Air Force regulations. So, when regulation 515 emerged, we had section 58, and we had regulation 435, which applied to Commonwealth property in the custody of a member of the Air Force. It provided that the mode of recovery should be by ordinary processes through the civil court. Then, regulation 515 intervenes and goes far beyond that. First of all, it no longer confines the offence to Commonwealth property. It could clearly apply to property that did not belong to the Commonwealth. I have canvassed this matter. I instanced the hypothetical case in which a member of the Air Force, contrary to instructions, might be flying over a farm below a prescribed minimum ceiling, and frighten some animals, causing damage which could result in a claim for damage by the owner of the stock against the Commonwealth. The claim might be acknowledged by the Commonwealth which would pay the damage and then in turn seek recovery from the member of the Air Force. In that case, no Commonwealth property was involved at all. It was the property of a third party altogether. It was a complete extension of this principle beyond the limited principle previously contained in section 58 and repeated in regulation 435. I mention this as one of the matters that has occurred to me as being worthy of serious consideration. In my view, it is a dangerous aspect of the regulation. Normally, if an airman or any member of the Defence Forces is charged with a breach of the regulations or an offence against the Defence Act, procedures for the determination of his guilt, trial and punishment or his exoneration are provided but. in this case, if damage was caused in the circumstances I have indicated, it was not necessary for the Air Board to take any action against him as it would have been required to do if it were merely alleging the offence. All that was necessary was to establish the claim for damages against him to the Air' Board, in the course of which the relevant authority would necessarily determine the offence and whether he was innocent or guilty. Therefore, there was, in fact, a by-passing of the whole procedure of alleging and determining offences committed against air force regulations or the Defence Act. For these, and many other reasons, the committee thought that the continuance of this regulation was contrary to the statute, and transgressed the principles to which the committee always adverts, and which are the beacons by which it guides its deliberations and determinations. We believe that this report, apart from the immediate effect of removing an injustice, might stimulate an interest and regard in this chamber for the matters which are the particular concern of the Senate and are of growing importance in the community. As I said earlier, we can expect this process to continue, and it has many advantages. For example, it allows things to be done which the Parliament could not possibly do, having regard to the modern complexities of life. It provides a certain flexibility in political and parliamentary administration. The passing of regulations and the granting of powers to minor bodies also enables technical matters to be handled by bodies that are most competent to do that work. They can deal with matters which would be quite unsuitable for the particular and detailed consideration of the Parliament. It enables a certain amount of experimentation to take place in the sense that we might deal by regulation with a town planning scheme. If it is not altogether suitable, it is possible to alter or amend the relevant regulation to provide an alternative scheme. If such a scheme were to come before the Parliament to be considered and adopted, it could not, even if unsuitable, be resurrected before the Parliament and considered within a reasonable time. Therefore, there is a tremendous demand for the extension of this kind of legislation but, as 1 have said, correlative to the demand is the duty and the responsibility it brings with it. That duty and responsibility must always be in the forefront of the minds of members of Parliament to ensure that the liberty of the individual is not unduly assailed, and that it is involved only where public interest demands that the liberty of the individual shall be sacrificed in whole or in part; to ensure that that shall be clearly understood and determined by the Parliament, and that the Parliament shall legislate in the minor things in the clear and distinct terms of the enabling statute. Apart from the ad hoc value of this report in the discontinuance of the relevant regulation, it has been an encouragement to the committee itself. The committee has always functioned, to some extent, on general principles. This is one of the most specific results that has flowed from the committee during the years that I have been identified with it. We can confidently expect that the same result will be obtained if the same processes are applied to other regulations that are extant or might be prepared at any time. This will inspire the committee to more continuous and closer scrutiny of relevant matters. Members of the committee appreciate the action of the Government in responding so quickly to the obvious logic of the committee's report and the points which it expressed. It is encouraging that when a case is objectively presented and, in sound common sense, is virtually unanswerable, there should be no dispute or hesitancy about taking the proper executive action. That action is an encouragement to the committee, and I congratulate the Minister on his personal and ready response to this report. Such action is not easily taken by a Minister, and we congratulate him on his promptitude. I commend this report, and the motion, to honorable senators, and urge a study of this very important field of minor and subsidiary legislation which is having such a marked effect on modern life. We should ensure that that effect is achieved only with justice to the individual, and not with injustice which escapes the scrutiny of the elected representatives. 68 KBL Queensland 0 0 WOOD, Ian Senator WOOD .- I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for the kindly references he made to the work of the Regulations' and Ordinances Committee. As Senator Byrne has said, the committee has been functioning continuously, and has furnished reports from time to time. It is a joint committee, but each member of it goes to work solely to apply, in a non-party spirit. the formula set down for the criticism of rules and regulations. When we sit at the table, party political affiliations are forgotten. 1 was appointed to the committee when I was elected to the Senate in 1949, and although honorable senators have not often seen occasions for action such as that contained in this report, I can assure them that the committee has met regularly. Of course, if the committee has no objection to a rule or regulation before it, it has nothing to say in that connexion. Most of the rules, regulations and ordinances before the committee are accepted. Only on a rare occasion is there need for the committee to act. In this case the committee saw the need to act, and it did so. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the only previous occasion on which he remembers action by the committee was that taken by the Ordinances Committee of 1944. Since I have been a member of the committee, we have brought before the Minister concerned matters to which we felt attention should be directed. For example, I remember the matter of the licences regulations in regard to imported goods. In that case the committee made a comprehensive report in which it stated that it considered that such matter should be dealt with by way of more substantial legislation. The then Minister did not agree, but we brought that matter forward and indicated our views very strongly. Later, we dealt with the onus of proof in the Health Act, and directed the attention of the then Minister for Health to it. Later, we discovered that the whole of the Health Act had been introduced in three sections by way of regulation, and we drew the attention of the then Minister for Health to that matter and indicated that we considered that health should be dealt with by parliamentary legislation. The Minister agreed that our views were correct, and, as a result of the work of the committee, he brought down legislation which is now the Health Act. Therefore, honorable senators will perceive that the committee has been functioning energetically. Whilst its work may not readily be seen, on the rare occasions that its reports come before this chamber honorable senators are reminded that it is working continuously on the business of the Parliament. The committee has the advantage of the advice of a legal adviser who is provided by the Government. He gives us his views and we study them, put forward our ideas and make up our minds on all the material before us. So, it is quite clear that this committee goes exhaustively into all the matter that comes before it. Perhaps I should also say that its members carry out their duties excellently, because they represent a very good cross-section of all parties in the Senate. A former Attorney-General, Senator Spicer, considered this committee of great importance, and the weight that the opinions of the committee carry indicates the valuable contributions made by its members. At present, I am the chairman of the committee, and there are six other members. Of those, three are legal practitioners - Senator Byrne, Senator Laught and Senator Wright. Senator Seward, another member, is also a member of the Public Accounts Committee and has had the benefit of wide experience in parliamentary life in Western Australia. He is much interested in all investigation work. Senator Arnold represents the Opposition on the committee, and we all know that he is a man of considerable merit. He has contributed greatly to our discussions. The legal members of the committee are particularly valuable, because the work of the committee demands that some of its members should have a legal knowledge. As a layman, I find it valuable to have the advantage of legal opinions on the committee. 69 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator Willesee - What about me? 69 KBL 0 0 WOOD, Ian Senator WOOD - In running through -the list of members of the committee I inadvertently overlooked Senator Willesee. Although he is one of the youngest senators in this chamber, he has been a member of this committee since the present Government assumed office in 1949, and he has applied himself most diligently to its work. There is no doubt that honorable senators look upon this committee as an important one, but all honorable senators who have so far spoken on the motion, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), have been members of tile committee. Perhaps, our work should bring more response from senators outside the committee. We should be glad to know what they think about our activities. This committee is similar to other committees of the Parliament in that it watches the interests of the people and the Parliament generally. The Public Accounts Committee is doing a very good job in ensuring that this Parliament shall get value for the money that it allocates for various purposes. That committee travels round the Commonwealth to decide whether proposed public works are necessary and whether, if they are proceeded with, the Government will get full value for its money. That committee, like the Public Accounts Committee, does a very good job for the Parliament and the people. The Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is of a similar nature, and watches over the rulemaking power of the Parliament. It is designed to ensure that Ministers and departments do not sidestep the rule-making powers of the Parliament. If a Minister or a department wants to get something done but does not want to run the gauntlet of a debate in Parliament, it is easy to make a regulation. This committee watches all such regulations, and, where necessary, brings them to the attention of the Parliament. If we keep in mind the simple fact that the purpose of the committee is to ensure that in cases where substantial legislation is needed it should be introduced; and if this committee is ever watchful of the content of all regulations brought before it, it will continue to succeed in its duty to safeguard the rights of the Parliament. If this committee were not functioning, regulations and ordinances that should not be passed might slip through and honorable senators would be none the wiser. Therefore, the committee is of real value not only to the Senate and the Parliament, but also to the people of Australia. As a result, the members of the committee have not only rendered valuable service, but in doing so have also received important knowledge of parliamentary procedure relating to these matters and of the working of departments and of the Parlia.ment generally. 1 have been pleased to hear the praise which has been bestowed on this committee to-day. I hope that its lay members will speak on this report. As chairman, 1 can confidently say that the members of the committee have been both able and active. lt is a body which will always be mindful of the rights of Parliament in relation to > emulation-making and will ensure that regulations shall not be evaded or sidestepped h\ Ministers or departments. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and other honorable senators who have spoken, for their praise of the committee's work. 70 K0N New South Wales 0 0 ARNOLD, James Senator ARNOLD . - It is with some diffidence that I rise to speak to the motion because of the praise which the chairman of the committee has given to its members. As far as 1 can recollect, it is many years since a report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has received such a welcome in the Senate. Usually such a document is received in a formal manner, and is pushed out of the way as quickly as possible, but on this occasion several honorable senators have contributed to the debate on the motion that it be printed. This discussion can be of great value to the Senate. The particular regulation which was the subject of investigation and report by the Senate committee might easily have escaped attention and become law in Australia. Honorable senators are aware that vast numbers of regulations are made from time to time, but over the years the inadequate scrutiny which they have received must make honorable senators realize that a government, by regulation, can take to itself substantial powers more properly belonging to Parliament. For a long time. I was labouring under the delusion that these regulations were properly examined before they were submitted to Parliament for approval, but when I heard the evidence given by the Parliamentary Draftsman before the committee in connexion with this matter, I was rudely awakened. He said that, frequently, departments would disregard his advice. I was under the impression that in a regulation certain action might need to be covered and that the Minister and his advisers would consult the draftsman as to the extent of its ambit and form. As a consequence, only by a mistake would any regulation be drafted which would not be in conformity with the requirements of parliamentary procedure. It was revealing to hear the draftsman say that it was possible for Ministers and heads of departments to disregard his advice and make regulations which did not conform with what he believed to be the proper form. This evidence underlined the importance of the task placed on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and its responsibility. to be certain that all regulations be carefully examined and brought before the Senate for approval or disallowance. The committee has to consider whether the power taken by regulation has legislative sanction or whether the powers of the Parliament are being properly exercised. During this session the committee has discovered that the Government had promulgated two or three regulations in which it considered the Government arrogated to itself greater powers than they ought to have. The committee recommended that one of the regulations, which is dealt with in this report, should be disallowed. Another is under consideration and will probably be placed before the Senate. Some attempt should be made to work out a code which could be followed to make certain that powers are not being taken from the Senate and that the scrutiny of regulations by this Parliament is not treated too lightly. In the evidence given before the committee in connexion with the regulation which is the subject of this report, matters were brought to our notice which appear to have been disregarded year after year, but which call for some action by this House. This regulation had its origin in 1943-44, when the Auditor-General made certain comments concerning the running of the armed services and suggested that there ought to be a tightening up in some of their administrative affairs. Since that time the Auditor-General has brought forward this matter on several occasions, but it is more than ten years since he first asked for a regulation or some corrective measure to be applied to the accounting of losses in the armed services. This regulation was adopted by the Royal Australian Air Force to meet that requirement. Although, ten or twelve years ago, the Auditor-General referred an anomaly to Parliament, the Parliament has not taken the necessary action to correct it. That reveals that insufficient attention is being given to the administration of some government agencies. However, it is one of those facets of government that appears to be nobody's task, is allowed to drift, and is revealed only in an inquiry of the nature which was conducted on this particular regulation. The Senate is a proper chamber to devote a good deal more time to the committee procedures of this Parliament. I have stressed from time to time the desirability of the Senate setting up a number of committees. My mind goes back to my suggestion that a committee be appointed to inquire into national development. The establishment of a committee such as this could give continuing policy to this Senate. Regulations which come before the Parliament are looked into by this committee of the Senate, but I feel that the committee does not devote enough time in its deliberations in order to give the regulations and ordinances the scrutiny that they need. Over the years my experience has been that this is one of the committees, the sittings of which are fitted in between the odd hours of the Parliament. It ought, like other committees, allot certain days for the care of its particular task. In a debate of this nature I think we might engage in a general review of the work of the Senate in matters appertaining to the Parliament itself, and into the better ways of conducting the Parliament. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee can do a great deal to bring to the notice of the members of the Senate and of the Parliament matters that are of tremendous importance, particularly if they are allowed to escape the scrutiny of the Parliament and the public. The regulation that we proposed should be withdrawn was rightly withdrawn by the Minister. It was obvious that the regulation ought not to have been made, and that somewhere in its drafting sufficient thought had not been given to the importance of what it contained. If we allow the Government, by Executive action, to take to itself all sorts of power and then rely upon a committee, meeting at odd moments, to audit the work of the Executive, I feel it is a little too much to expect that committee to uncover all of the maladministration that may occur through regulations and ordinances. I am very pleased that to-day the Senate has deemed it worthwhile to spend an hour or so discussing the general problem associated with the committee. I agree with Senator Wood, the chairman of the committee, that honorable senators who were not actually connected with the committee should express their views on its work and point out how it can be. furthered in any way. T should like them to scrutinize the way in which we are carrying out our parliamentary life to see whether it is not possible for this Senate to play an even more important part than it is playing at the moment. 72 KOW Tasmania 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator HENTY .- I enter this debate in response to the remarks of Senator Wood, the chairman of the committee, and of Senator Arnold, who suggested that honorable senators not in any way connected with the committee should appraise its work. I often hear of people coming into this chamber and on seeing a number of vacant seats ask, "Where are the senators? Where have they gone?" Their minds generally run in one channel; they think that honorable senators are in the bar or the billiard room when, in fact, honorable senators are acting as the watchdogs of democracy as members of so many of these committees which they attend during the day. If honorable senators look at the back of the notice-paper they will -see the number of committees which we have in this chamber. Thirteen appear on the notice-paper and there are many party committees which do very sound work. When honorable senators consider the personnel of this committee they must acknowledge that it is a very worthwhile -committee. I think that the chairman, after listening to his eulogy, will have to remain in that position for the next twenty years. I do not know whether he will get the support of Senator Willesee, who is the only senator about whom there would be any doubt. I say quite seriously and genuinely that during the six years I have been here these regulations have been a puzzle to any lay man. The committee, in scrutinizing these regulations, acts as a warning to a wanton Minister who likes to govern by regulation and who does not wish to bring his work to the scrutiny of the Parliament. 72 JSB 0 0 CRITCHLEY, John Senator Critchley - Some governments, too, are carried on by regulation. 72 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator HENTY - In saying that, I am assuming that Ministers are part of a government. 72 JSB 0 0 CRITCHLEY, John Senator Critchley - Some governments are guilty of doing that, too. 72 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator HENTY - I agree with the honorable senator. We laymen in the "Senate are indebted to those senators who carry out this work. It is not an easy job to scrutinize, dissect and analyse these rather dry regulations, but it is most important work indeed. The manner in which this regulation was so quickly withdrawn must have brought home to the members of the committee that in this one case, at any rate, they had put their finger on a regulation which should have been more carefully scrutinized before it was placed before the Parliament and before it came before the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I have not anything else to say. I felt that one or two honorable senators who were not members of the committee and who appreciate the work of the committee should say, " Well, we think it has done a good job ". Indeed, we might say that while it does its work so well, it lets some of us out from reading these regulations at all. 72 KBC Western Australia 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE . - I desire to be brief because 1 think that just about everything that can possibly be said has been said. I want to underline one or two things connected with the action taken by the committee on this occasion which was somewhat different from that taken on former occasions. I think it is the first time that evidence has been called before the committee, and examination and cross-examination conducted over a long period of time. It was most revealing and one of the most interesting crossexaminations to which I have listened. One of the most interesting things connected with this regulation was, as Senator Arnold pointed out, that it took twelve or thirteen years for it to come to fruition, only to be disallowed by the Minister himself. Rather than that being the case of a Minister trying to be over-ambitious in the running of his department, it happened quite accidentally. It was most interesting, as the cross-examination proceeded and the evidence was pieced together, to discover that when departments tried to move into a field where they could take to themselves more control over the recovery of money, each one of the three departments, acting quite properly and moving towards what they thought was something desirable, at no stage, as was disclosed by cross-examination by Senator Wright, gave specific consideration to the interests of a third party. The moment we move into the third party field, we give power to the departments, to recover unknown amounts of money outside the present processes of law. I mention this aspect of the matter because it becomes more interesting as each department puts forward its conception of matters at their various stages in the department. Over the years, I have noticed another alarming trend in government departments, in that they defend not only the action token right to the last letter, but also the methods that were used. Any department can avoid the scrutiny of this committee by -means of the responsible Minister making a :substantive motion in the Parliament, whereupon the regulation is immediately excluded because it does not come, within our purview. As I have said, all along the line the ^departments have not only defended what they did, but also the manner in which they did it, stoutly contending that they were 100 per cent, right. In the final analysis, as Senator Arnold has pointed out, in the present instance the Minister agreed with the committee and disallowed the regulation. I come now to an aspect of the matter that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), but with which no other speaker has dealt. He suggested that, in addition to our committee, a similar committee should be appointed by the House of Representatives. 1 do not see the necessity for that. In my opinion, it is necessary for only one parliamentary committee to scrutinize regulations. I believe that a committee of the Senate is preferable to a committee of the House of Representatives for this purpose. Furthermore, Standing Order 36A. (4.) provides - All Regulations and Ordinances laid on the Table of the Senate shall stand referred to such Committee for consideration and, if necessary, report thereon . . . Although the prescribed period of fifteen days has elapsed and a regulation has become law, it still stands referred to this mittee - as regulations passed from twenty to 30 years ago still stand referred - and the committee can report on it at any time. As I have said, we cannot disallow a regulation after the prescribed period of fifteen days has elapsed, but any regulation or ordinance can be reviewed by the committee at any time. Seeing that congratulations are the order of the day, I should like to refer to the two outstanding young officers of the Senate, Messrs. Odgers and Bullock, who successively have performed sterling service in the capacity of secretary to the committee. In spite of the kudos that we have taken to ourselves to-day, I believe that the enthusiasm that has been engendered by this committee is largely attributable to the efforts of these two officers. I understand that, in future, another officer of the Senate will act in this capacity; the other two officers whom I have mentioned have set him a high standard to emulate. Over the years, various members of this chamber have advocated the appointment of committees in connexion with national development and other matters. The results that have been achieved by the Standing Regulations and Ordinances Committee proves the value of committees of this chamber. 73 KT8 New South Wales 0 0 MCCALLUM, John Senator McCALLUM . - I rise mainly to congratulate the Regulation and Ordinances Committee on the report that it has presented, and to which I have looked forward for a long time. There was a stage when we thought that all laws were made by the Parliament except the common law, and that a person was not bound to comply with a law that was not covered by statute. However, some years ago a former Chief Justice of England wrote a great book on this subject. I know that it was a great book, because he said so himself; he so described it to a friend of mine at a dinner. In that book, he described the new method of government as the new despotism. We all, no doubt, remember when we became members of this chamber how we were appalled by the number of regulations in existence, and were concerned at our inability to understand them. I am convinced that the best means of our understanding the regulations is to have a committee to study them and direct our attention to certain aspects of them. I agree with Senator Willesee that this is a proper function of the Senate, in which there is a somewhat different atmosphere from that of the other place. Of course, we know that the fate of the Government depends on votes in the other place; it could depend on a sudden vote, and therefore the party spirit is always very high in the House of Representatives. It need not be so high in this chamber. In general, I think that we discuss matters with a good deal more calm and deliberation. This is a subject that should be discussed in such a way. ft is wise, too, that our attention should be directed to certain matters by Senate committees because, in a sense, those committees constitute the eyes and ears of this chamber. Our committees are able, as a result of their inquiries, to submit to this chamber certain conclusions which can form the basis of a proper debate. Therefor, I hope that all honorable senators will support the establishment of additional committees, not to be a nuisance to the Administration, but to assist the calm consideration of various matters by the Senate. 74 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - Although I was not Attorney-General when the report under discussion was presented, I should tike to congratulate the committee on it. I want to make it clear that the specific regulation with which the report deals substantially was rescinded. That action was due to the vigilance of the committee in bringing to the notice of the Senate and of the responsible Minister, certain aspects of the regulation. The legality of it, and whether it was ultra vires or intra vires, was not a determining factor. The regulation was withdrawn by the Government, as a matter of policy and without any hesitation when attention was directed to its full effect. That emphasizes the importance of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, because it is quite a simple matter for a regulation which, on its face appears innocuous, to be devastatinglydangerous. Perhaps, if the Ministers themselves exercised greater vigilance in the scheme of things that would not happen. However, the committee has more than justified its existence by bringing to the notice of the Senate the implications of regulations which are subsequently disallowedby the Government.I trust that the committee will continue to exercise similar vigilance in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 5.35 to 8 p.m. 74 miscellaneous Debate resumed from 24th May (vide page 1002), on motion by Senator Marriott - That, in the opinion of the Senate, the present practice of broadcasting the proceedings of the Commonwealth Parliament should either cease or be varied to provide for the broadcasting of portions only of those proceedings, such as question time in both Houses and important speeches in either House; and thatthis resolution be forwarded for the consideration of the Government. 74 KTN Tasmania Leader of the Opposition 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA . - The motion before the Senate is one that was moved by Senator Marriott before the Parliament rose for the recess. I followed it very carefully at the time and noted his main points. I think he is to be commended for raising the issue, after ten years of experience of broadcasting, and for the amount of thought that he quite obviously devoted to his subject.I remind the Senate of the terms of his motion. Senator Marriott himself rejected his alternative for selective broadcasting of the proceedings of either House. He realized the grave difficulties involved in determining what was important and what was less important, and, accordingly, I do not devote any argument to that alternative at all. I now find the motion is one which seeks for the complete cessation of parliamentary broadcasts, and I propose to proceed on that basis. I agree with very much of what Senator Marriott said, but my feeling is that he seemed to be more concerned with the mechanics of operating the broadcasting system than with the broad fundamental principle that underlies the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. From the notes that I made at the time when he spoke - I regret I have not had time adequately to refresh my mind from the report of his speech - I should like to deal seriatim with the points he raised. I think his first was that the microphone rules Parliament. He gave a number of instances which, in his view, justified that claim. For instance, he pointed to the fact that whereas in preradio days the budget would be delivered at 3 p.m., it is now broadcast at 8 p.m.. at what is known as the prima donna hour. He says that important second-reading speeches are reserved for the same hour on the air. What he says is true, but I think that those facts are an automatic and rather necessary adjustment to the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. I think that if either House has the opportunity of reaching a very wide audience it is surely the most natural thing in the world for either the Government or an- Opposition to seek to broadcast its viewpoint at a time when it may reasonably be expected that the greatest audience will be available. I admit the soft impeachment thai trie business is so arranged, but surely that is only accommodating Parliament to the new system. I can see no objection to that at all. Senator Marriott points out that the debates are interrupted at 5.45 p.m. to enable something regarded as of more importance to come on at 8 p.m. When all parties conspire to that end, when the Government and the Opposition collaborate to that end - it is nearly always a matter of complete agreement; even the scattering of the broadcasts between the two Houses of Parliament is largely a matter of agreement - surely that is no justification for claiming that the microphone rules the Parliament. I think it is merely a necessary adjustment that flows from the fact that broadcasting has to be established. His next point was that the Senate meekly gives in to the House of Representatives. I do not think that is the case. The Senate is only half the size of the House of Representatives. It sits for approximately only about half the time, and accordingly, in the ordinary course of events, one would not expect that it would be allowed quite the same broadcasting time; but under the present system of broadcasting, when one examines what the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is in charge of the whole matter under the act establishing it, has decided, 1 think very little exception can be taken to the present system. Even on the notes of broadcasts for this week, as I recall it, the arrangement is for Tuesday for the House of Representatives, Wednesday for the Senate, Thursday for the House of Representatives and Friday for the Senate. In actual fact, and in actual allocation, two days are allowed to each chamber each week. If the Senate prized the air so highly and regarded it as a dominating factor, it could easily arrange its business to sit on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and so have two days instead of one out of its three for broadcasting. It could quite easily do that, but, of course, the Senate lines the two up, apportions their values, considers its own convenience, and says. " It is more important that we return to our electorates, that we have time to travel, to reach them, and to prepare for the work of next week than to stay for the privilege of broadcasting ". 75 KBL 0 0 WOOD, Ian Senator Wood - There are other factors also. 75 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I do not know what they are. I think the main factor would be the convenience of senators themselves; that would be the dominating factor. If 1 am right in suggesting that, as 1 think 1 am, then surely the Senate does not rate broadcasting so highly after all. That, in my view, is the best argument against Senator Marriott's proposal that the microphone rules Parliament. I think that is the clearest answer to it. If the Senate was so radioconscious, it would undoubtedly sit on Friday, a day which has been reserved for its use on the air. Then, Senator Marriott brackets two more items. I admit his soft impeachment here. He says that the Government puts on items that favour it and that the Opposition save adjournment motions for days when the Senate ' is on the air. That is perfectly true. What is more natural than that? After all is said and done, it is human nature to seek the best advantage for oneself. Is it not also the duty of a Government, putting its viewpoint, and of an Opposition putting its own outlook, to seek what each considers to be the most advantageous broadcasting time for the purpose? I admit that it is an incident of the system, but I think it is a very natural, very human, and I should say a very proper one. The mere fact that that is so doss not justify the claim that the microphone rules Parliament. Senator Marriott also claimed that the broadcast ceases at the moment when the adjournment motion is moved. That is true. No speeches on the adjournment are broadcast, and I think there is a very good reason for that. Adjournment time is the danger time when any topic might be introduced. That is the time when, if the proceedings were broadcast, there would be the greatest danger of the privileges of Parliament being abused in order to make personal attacks on people, perhaps not within the Parliament, for one reason and another. We have had a good deal of experience of that. I think that it is wise that it should end. Another factor to be considered in connexion with that is that the adjournment takes place late in the evening. On some days, the Senate has sat morning, afternoon and night, and the temptation, if the proceedings were being broadcast when the adjournment was moved, would be to elongate the proceedings unduly, and perhaps carry them into the small hours of the morning. I think there is a good deal of common sense as well as a sound basis for not broadcasting the proceedings on the adjournment. After all, the Standing Orders lay down certain rules for determining when business comes on and how it is to be conducted. No one has notice of what is to be said on the adjournment. A person may be attacked, whether he is functioning inside or outside the Parliament. He might not have any warning of the attack. The forms of the Parliament are designed to enable sufficient notice to be given of the business that is coming forward. That is an additional reason why the proceedings on the adjournment should not be broadcast. It is true, as Senator Marriott has said, that honorable senators have accommodated themselves to the introduction of radio broadcasts by agreeing to limit their speeches, when the Senate is being broadcast, to half an hour for all except leaders and Ministers whereas, under the Standing Orders, they are entitled to an hour. After all is said and done, speeches are improved by being condensed into half an hour, although I offend against brevity myself. I cannot get my speeches down to smaller proportions, and I regret that because I regard it as a defect. I think that speeches are more compact, more interesting and far more easy on the ear if they are not drawn out over a period of an hour. That arrangement to limit speeches was not only fair, but was also a distinct advantage in that it tended to improve the debates in this chamber. It gave everybody an opportunity to speak to the electors. At this stage I must say that the gentleman's agreement that was made between the Opposition and the Government has, with the rarest and most accidental exceptions, been honoured most scrupulously. I agree entirely with Senator Marriott that, when State elections are pending, there is a tendency to turn the Parliament into a medium for propaganda. It really becomes an electioneering platform for the State elections. 76 KOW LP 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator HENTY - This is a States HouseSenator McKENNA. - Frankly, I do not think that justifies members of the National Parliament stepping down from a consideration of national questions to enter the realm of State politics. I think we disfigure our proceedings by doing so. I am not thinking of anything in particular in this connexion.. The fault lies everywhere. I do not see, however, how a standing order could be drawn that would effectively prevent that sort of occurrence. I do not think such proceedings could be forbidden by a standing order, but if 1 thought that could be done,I would be in favour of it.I consider the present arrangement is a bad feature and" one that promotes acrimony. Such discussions are not strictly the business of the National Parliament. The second principal point made by Senator Marriott was that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings damaged the prestige of the Parliament. If that is the case, it is not a reflection upon the fact that Parliament is broadcast, but upon those who are using the broadcasting system; that is, the members of Parliament themselves. In this Parliament we speak from what I regard as the highest forum in Australia. We reach an audience of the widest possible character. We are speaking to the young, the middle aged and the elderly, and I believe there is a grave responsibility upon us all not only to exhibit good manners and good behaviour in our relations with one another, but also to refrain studiously from scandal and slander which, once uttered, cannot be recalled. One could not reach the same audience again even if one wanted to make amends. Therefore, insofar as there are difficulties in the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, such as those I have mentioned, I suggest that we should not blame the broadcasting, but those who misuse it. The remedy lies entirely in our own hands. It is for us to improve our public relations, and to observe good standards of behaviour. The third point made by Senator Marriott was that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was distasteful to the public, and that a majority of the listeners did not want consistent broadcasting of Parliament. Senator Marriott gave a few reasons for that point of view, and spoke of the need for a good voice and for oratory.. He said that there was much repetition as between the House of Representatives and the Senate. I believe that a good voice and oratory are helpful to those who speak over the air, but they are outweighed by two things - by a thoughtful speech and by sincerity. Those two qualities will always command an audience rather than the mere mechanics of voice, delivery and formal presentation. I do not deny that those qualities are helpful, but I do not think they are the principal attractions for the listener. I know that there is a good deal of noise in both chambers while speeches are being broadcast. The microphone magnifies noise. I have listened on a number of occasions, and could hear many background noises and conversations which were more audible to a listener than they were to a speaker in this chamber. That is irritating and disconcerting. It is distracting enough to be speaking in this chamber while honorable senators nearby are conversing. They do so without thought, and I am sure that some of us do not realize the strength and carrying power of our own voices. We engage in that practice ourselves, but if we were listening to the effects over the air, we might be frightened to know how those side conversations are going over to the public and how disturbing they are to listeners. Senator Marriott referred to the cost of broadcasting the Parliament for some 600 hours a year. I believe that it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the cost. The fact is that the Parliament takes over a second network when its proceedings are being broadcast. I admit the justice of the complaint by persons in remote areas who have only one radio channel, and who' have no option but to listen to Parliament while the proceedings are being broadcast. They are cut off from their normal entertainment. That is a ground for legitimate complaint. The proper answer might well be to set up an entirely new channel for the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings as soon as the Parliament can afford the cost. It is rather a pity to disturb well-established programmes which are broadcast on normal channels. Many people are creatures of habit and are disturbed when their mode of life has to be re-arranged. That would make them resentful of parliamentary broadcasts. I was horrified at the thought that Senator Marriott might be correct when he said that this Parliament might seek television broadcasting one of these days. I shall not be interested in that proposal. I say quite frankly that the days upon which the proceedings of the Senate are broadcast are comfortable neither for me nor for the Whip. Honorable senators are seeking the most advantageous hour to speak, and I am more sorry for the Whip than for myself. There is an atmosphere of propaganda about the speeches on the days that we are being broadcast. The atmosphere in the chamber is tense, and tempers are prone to i. se far more quickly than is the case on other days. The Senate is least objective when the proceedings in this chamber are being broadcast. Although I am a strong advocate of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings for reasons that I shall give, if I were considering my own comfort, I would wish that our proceedings' were not broadcast. 1 am more comfortable on an occasion like this when I can be objective and talk quietly to the Senate, disregarding the outside audience. If it were a matter of personal taste T should be in Senator Marriott's corner in this matter, but while radio broadcasting is here we have to put up with the propaganda and tension that is involved. After all is said and done they are mere incidents of the system, and we have to take the good with the bad in this relatively new medium. The broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is in its very early stages. Late this evening I had put into my hand a pamphlet written by Dean McHenry, of the University of California at Los Angeles in America. That gentleman is the dean of political science at that university, and he has written. a most interesting brochure on the broadcasting of parliamentary debates in New Zealand and Australia. In it he has stated that Australia and New Zealand are perhaps the only two countries in the world that broadcast parliamentary proceedings regularly. Perhaps, the Senate would be interested in part of the introduction of his book which reads - Ever since radio became common, recurring suggestions have been made that the medium ought to be used to carry the debates of legislative bodies directly to the body politic. As Sir William Haley once aptly put it: Parliament is the keystone of the arch of our democracy. Broadcasting is the most comprehensive, simultaneous, and ubiquitous means yet invented of communicating with the people. It is natural that from the beginning they should have taken a lively interest in each other. Although frequently proposed elsewhere, only New Zealand and Australia broadcast their national parliamentary proceedings on an extensive and regular basis. The legislative assembly of Saskatchewan is on the air for a limited period each legislative day; various American state legislatures and local councils have experimented with television and radio; special events have long been broadcast from the American Congress, and more recently spectacular Senate committee hearings have been televised; important West-German Parliamentary proceedings occasionally are transmitted on both radio and television. That appears to outline the degree of broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings throughout the world. The House of Commons is completely opposed to the idea of such broadcasts. Mr. Attlee opposed the proposal as strongly and as firmly as did Mr. Chamberlain, and I believe that the House of Commons itself even refused to allow the war-time speeches of Mr. Churchill to be recorded and re-broadcast. Great Britain has really kept its Parliament down to the level sought by Senator Marriott, that is, completely free from outside influence, or whatever influence radio exercises on parliamentary proceedings. Broadcasting was introduced into the Parliament on 5th July, 1946, by the Labour government of the day. It was brought in as the result of a recommendation by a joint parliamentary committee, and was a multi-party approach, all parties agreeing to its establishment. Complete control of parliamentary broadcasting was set up by statute and vested in a joint parliamentary committee. Therefore, the Parliament has kept this matter completely under its own control. Hitherto, I have been talking about the mechanics of broadcasting, but there are great principles underlying the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. We uphold the democratic ideal that unless a minority viewpoint can be fully and adequately expressed, we lack one of the salient features of a democracy. Let me assume that in what we term a democracy one side was able to present its viewpoint fully, completely and adequately, but the other side could not present its viewpoint at all. Would anybody claim that we had a democracy under those conditions? Of course not. If one side is able to give an adequate presentation and the other a most inadequate one, we have still not achieved democracy. It is one of the fundamental elements of the democratic form of government and society which we espouse that there should be adequate opportunity for the presentation of opposing views in all political matters. That is one of the basic reasons why the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was introduced. There is a danger in a country like ours, where we find a powerful metropolitan press which is rapidly ousting the country press, through the new means of air transport, and becoming very powerful. The press has very vital interests in the complete medium of mass communication - radio broadcasting - and it has been accorded a dominating position in the rather limited present field of television, that new and improved means of mass communication. Therefore, the power to communicate to the people is largely in one set of hands, and itcould be that only one viewpoint would be presented in matters of fundamental principle. A correction of that, and a very desirable one, is the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. At least the opportunity is given to the elector to hear what goes on although very often after listening to a debate he is still in doubt about which side is right. That happens for a number of reasons the chief of which is that matters in this country are so interlocked that we cannot touch one phase of our social business activities without impinging upon and affecting many others. Accordingly, there is no all good solution of any problem that faces the country or Government. Many things can be said against every possible solution. Maybe a government selects a particular approach to a problem because there are 52 points in its favour and 48 against. When the matter comes to the Parliament, one side argues for and presents the 48 per cent. and the other side presents the 52 per cent. If the bemused elector picks the side with 48 points surely it is no wonder but he has the opportunity to hear the case from both sides; and I believe that the strength of a democracy depends upon the degree of enlightenment - political and cultural - of its citizens. On that statement I base the further statement that no government can proceed much further or faster than ordinary contemporary thought will allow it. In the end, the Government has to go back to the tempo of current thought among the people. So, if we want to progress in our policies, and if we want action, the minds of the people have to be brought to a stage where they are informed and trained in thinking on political matters. While everybody here knows perfectly well that what takes place in this chamber impinges upon the lives of our people at every point every day, at home, at work and on the streets, how few of the people have the faintest idea that what happens here has an effect on them. If they did realize it, how much more interest would they take in the deliberations of people who are shaping their lives and those of their children? We are serving the cause of democracy in an essential way in allowing these proceedings to be broadcast. Insofar as we offend people, that is our fault, not the fault of the broadcasting of the proceedings. If there are faults in our behaviour we must correct them. That matter surely lies in the hands of the parliamentarians. On the question of the interest taken by the people in parliamentary broadcasts, I have no personal knowledge of whether a great many people listen or not, but I know that I have no anonymity on a tram ot train. That may be because I talk too much in this place when we are on the air. If I say a sentence outside the Parliament among strangers, they tell me who I am. They know my voice, because they have heard me speak over the air, and they can identify me instantly. I have had thai experience so many times that it inclines me to the opinion that many people do listen to the broadcasts of these proceedings. There is one phenomenon which rather proves that people do listen, and that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings has stimulated an enormous interest in the Parliament. From the time that Parliament began to be broadcast, Pioneer buses began coming to Canberra, and loads of sightseers visit Parliament almost daily. The promoters of those tours did not make a deviation from the regular route on their own initiative. They told the late Mr. Chifley and myself that they were forced to do so because travellers wanted to see the National Parliament. Their interest had been stimulated, and as a result, these bus tours never now miss Canberra. The interest of the travelling public has been stimulated by the broadcasting of Parliament. It has brought the proceedings into their homes, and aroused their interest. It is an excellent thing that young children should know of the existence ot Parliament, and gradually acquire some understanding of the political society in which they live. I have searched the gallup polls - or had them searched for mc - to find out whether there had been any assessment of public opinion on this matte . The only one I can find was published in November, 1954, and the Senate may be interested to know what were the findings. The heading is - Fewer want to hear Parliament. No doubt that statement will please the mover of the motion. The report continues - A reduced, but fairly substantial, majority or the public wants parliamentary broadcasts to continue, a Gallup poll found in October. Asked, " Do you think broadcasting from Federal Parliament should be continued, reduced or stopped? " - 1,860 men and women answered - That means that 66 per cent, of the people wanted parliamentary broadcasts to continue. 79 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator Mattner - That is 66 per cent, of the listeners. 79 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - That is so. Eleven per cent, wanted the broadcasts continued but reduced, but a total of 66 per cent, were in favour of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. 79 KBL 0 0 WOOD, Ian Senator Wood - That would be 66 per cent, of the people interviewed. 79 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - It means 66 per cent, of the exact number asked - 1,860. This was a normal kind of gallup poll, which is usually found to be reasonably accurate - as I have discovered to my discomfort politically, on occasions. The remaining results were - Only 15 per cent, of the people wanted them stopped, and 19 per cent, had no opinion. Those percentages varied from 1952, when 72 per cent, wanted the broadcasts to continue. In 1953, 57 per cent, wanted a continuance, and in 1954, 55 per cent. If that poll truly reflects public opinion, obviously a majority of the public is in favour of continuing the broadcasts. In those circumstances, I regret that I cannot join Senator Marriott in voting for a proposal which would mean the termination of parliamentary broadcasts. I agree with him that we can improve the mechanics of the system. It may well be that the debate which he has now provoked will lead to some further consideration of those methods, but I should be bitterly disappointed if the Senate were to carry a resolution that the proceedings of the Parliament should no longer be broadcast. Allied with broadcasting is television, and this reminds me of a story that I heard Lord Bruce tell some years ago after Mr. Keith Ewert had unexpectedly won the seat of Flinders - a rather fickle electorate of Victoria. On the Monday after the election, the Prime Minister was speaking to a small gathering and bemoaning the fact that he had lost his man in Flinders. Lord Bruce said: " Mr. Prime Minister, you should not complain about Flinders. I am the one with the world's greatest grievance against Flinders. In 1929, when I was Prime Minister of this country, they threw me to the wolves ". At the election in that year he had been defeated by 20,000 votes. For three years he was abroad in England attending to his private business, but when he returned at the end of that period, the same fickle electorate, without one minute of campaigning by him, re-elected him with a majority of 20,000. 80 KAW 0 0 WEDGWOOD, Ivy Senator Wedgwood - They realized their error. 80 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - He based the result on a different ground. He said, " If you want the electors to love you, never let them see you ". That may be a word of warning to honorable senators about television. Lord Bruce went on to say: "Thereafter I went away and became High Commissioner in London for a period of fifteen years. I made only three trips back to Australia during that time, and each one was deliberately short. Now I find I come back somewhat in the nature of a national hero". He then said again, " If you want the electors to love you* never let them see you". 80 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - Is that why the honorable Leader of the Opposition advocates,. " Sydney or the bush "? 80 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - If Senator Wright cares to raise that point, I think I might remind him that quite recently I gave a rather effective demonstration of such at slogan. However, I am applying Lord Bruce's story not in the context which. Senator Wright has chosen to pick up, but in relation to television. Quite seriously, I suggest to the Senate - and I am not looking at any one in particular when I say this - that it would be much better if the proceedings of Parliament were not televised. It would stir up the vanity of honorable senators even a little more than, radio broadcasting does. 80 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator Henty - Senators would have to get a face-lift occasionally. 80 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - Face-lifts and colouring and all the rest. I do not decry the need for some vanity in people who grace this chamber. I think it is important. When all vanity goes, one has given up theconflict of life altogether, and should be pensioned off. It is good to have a reasonably good opinion of oneself, and one would not be concerned about his appearance if there were not just a little vanity. If any one tells us that we, in the Parliament, are vain, I plead guilty, because within bounds, vanity can be regarded as a virtue rather than as a vice. I have talked longer than I thought this motion would inspire me to do, but I have been interested in the matter. Senator Marriott has rendered a service in raising: it and providing an opportunity for honorable senators to express their views, but I regret that I cannot join him in the proposition that parliamentary broadcasts should cease. 80 JZQ New South Wales 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON . - Somewhat in the same spirit as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) I should like to speak to Senator Marriott's motion. There are aspects of it which I can support and others with which I find myself in opposition. While the Leader of the Oppositionwas dealing with the matter, I almost felt, during the early stages, that he was making: his speech from notes that I have prepared, - particularly when he spoke in regard to the mechanics of the subject. I shall attempt to break new ground. The motion contains two main provisions - that a ban should be placed on the broadcasting of proceedings in both Houses, or, alternatively that the present practice of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings shall be restricted to question time and important speeches. In the same breath, however, the honorable senator writes off the second leg of his motion. He said, " My alternative is of little value ". The Leader of the Opposition also suggests that the alternative is of little value, but I suggest that the alternative does have some value, and, during the course of my speech, I shall make reference to a fairly reliable authority in support of that contention. The mover of the motion postulated three main propositions and proceeded to supply an answer to them; their propositions are the burden of the motion. He asked, in effect, " Does the microphone rule the Parliament? Does the broadcasting of proceedings of the Parliament lower the prestige or reputation of the Parliament? " And, " Is the practice of broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament distasteful to the general public or unwanted by it? " Then, in his speech, he produced an affirmative answer to those three questions and that, he said, was the basis of his motion. The three questions he postulated need closer examination. For instance, simply to say that the introduction of the budget at 8 o'clock at night instead of at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, is evidence that the microphone rules the Parliament, is, on the face of it, absurd. In addition to the reasons that were given by the Leader of the Opposition, it has been the practice for some considerable time to deliver the budget speech as late in the day as possible, and for very good reasons. It is desirable, and, in fact, essential, that there should not be trading in relation to budget matters on the day on which the budget is presented. At 8 o'clock at night, the Stock Exchange has closed and everybody has gone home from business for the day. Another very good reason why the budget speech should be made at 8 o'clock is that since the people pay the taxes they have the right to listen to the budget speech; and, obviously, more people are enabled to listen to it at 8 o'clock, by virtue of their working hours, than at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. To suggest that the microphone is ruling the Parliament simply because the budget is presented at, 8 o'clock at night cannot be substantiated in reason. Senator Marriott then suggested that the reduction of the period allowed to each speaker from an hour to 30 minutes also was evidence of the tendency of the microphone to rule the Parliament. Whilst I admit that there is some juggling of time for speakers on the air, surely it is desirable in the interests of the electors that most important matters of national and State interest should be discussed when the greatest number of listeners are available to hear such discussions. The reduction of the time allowed to each speaker is, as the Leader of the Opposition said, all to the good as it tends to produce better rather than worse speeches. Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the selected Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, is on record as having said that if he were asked to make a speech and he had two hours in which to do so he would speak for two hours, but if he were given a week to prepare the speech he would speak for an hour, and if he were given a fortnight to prepare it he would speak for only half an hour and make a very good speech. I think that is true. When one speaks extempore one cannot be so selective in his choice of arguments; he has not the time to weigh the pros and cons of what he is going to say. On the other hand, if he knows he is limited to half an hour he must put his head down and concentrate on the telling points which he thinks will add to the debate, and, therefore, will make a better speech. Rather than the microphone ruling the Parliament, we can say on that argument, that broadcasting is of assistance to the Parliament, because it makes for more worthwhile and penetrating speeches. Secondly, Senator Marriott asked, in effect, " Does broadcasting lower the prestige of the Parliament? " In answer to that question I think we can say, " Yes " and " No ". There is no doubt that whilst in certain circumstances the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings would lower the prestige of the Parliament, on the other hand there are circumstances in which it improves the prestige of the Parliament. If there is a lack of dignity on the part of an honorable senator, surely the more his electors know about it the better. It seems to me that if an honorable member or honorable senator becomes famous or infamous for his conduct in the Parliament, it is all to the better that his electors should know about it. On balance, the fact of his knowing that his electors will be aware of whether he is disorderly or rude will tend to restrain him. In those circumstances, broadcasting may improve his conduct rather than cause it to be discreditable. In any case, we are a fairly robust people. We play the game hard and we debate pretty hard; we are not a race of cissies. We like to blow off and say what we think; and it is far better that we should do that than carry on as do members of the parliaments of some countries where they get down to firing at one another, have unseemly brawls and resort to lethal weapons. We express our view in the Parliament and hold to our point of view, but we have a democratic way of doing so. In that regard, I do not think that the honorable senator can sustain the point that he has raised. In relation to Senator Marriott's third point, I may be able to get on his side. He posed the question, " Is the broadcasting of proceedings in the Parliament distasteful to the general public or unwanted by it? " We are in a position to bring forward some figures and some research upon that question. It is rather an odd thing that the Leader of the Opposition should have quoted from a Gallup poll in respect of which I have precisely the same document as that from which he quoted. The document is here for anybody to peruse. 82 KH5 0 0 GORTON, John Senator Gorton - When was it published? 82 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - It was published in November, 1 954. This is the same document from which the honorable senator quoted. I can say that with certainty, because he read it verbatim, and I followed him through on the document before me. What the honorable senator quoted is definitely in the document but the heading is - Few usually listen to Parliament- That, of course, is directly the opposite from what he said. Then the article reads - In a typical week in October, only one adult in six listened to Federal Parliament for a quarter of an hour or more. This Gallup Poll was made after Parliament had been sitting, for the usual three days, in the week to October 16. 82 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator Henty - Why, it is better than a Jack Davey session! 82 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - So, it is suggested that fewer people now listen to the parliamentary broadcasts than formerly. There also appears in the same document a comment to the effect that the Senate has grown in favour and popularity. I am sure that all honorable senators will be pleased to hear that that is so. Although the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) cited the gallup poll as testimony that broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings are popular, I suggest that it is clear from this document that opinion blows hot and cold in this regard. Certainly the document as a whole implies that fewer people now listen to parliamentary broadcasts than formerly. That, of course, supports substantially what Senator Marriott has said. I should like to revert to the question of limited broadcasting, as envisaged in Senator Marriott's motion. He suggests that parts only of the parliamentary proceedings, such as question time in both Houses, and important speeches in either House, should be broadcast. I have before me several annual reports of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The reports for 1952 and 1953 definitely advocate some modification of the broadcasting of parliamentary debates such as is envisaged in the motion. For instance, the 1952 report contains this paragraph - The Commission is of opinion that the institution of parliamentary broadcasts was a wise one, and that the service it performs is a highly significant contribution to the better information of the electorate of a democracy. We feel that it is a proven technique which should be continued, but are also of opinion that a revision of the total broadcasts of parliamentary sessions should now be undertaken in the light of our experience since 1946. A discrimination as between those sessions of Parliament which make good broadcasting and those which do not, is admittedly difficult, and any limitation of broadcasts from the House might well necessitate some rearrangement of House procedure. The Commission feels, however, that some such revision would be in the interests not only of the National Service but of Parliament itself, and would certainly increase the level of Parliamentary listening in the ultimate. i think that that was fair comment, and 1 should like lo hear the views of other honorable senators on it. The portion of the commission's 1953 report relating to parliamentary broadcasts contains this observation - While public appreciation of noteworthy debates, of important Ministerial statements and of Question Time has remained satisfactory, the general level of listening has deteriorated markedly in recent years . . . The Commission feels obliged to express the opinion that the future good estate of Parliamentary broadcasting is dependent upon some limitation of these sessions. In accordance with this conviction, we have therefore suggested, for the consideration of Parliament, that the broadcasts would be more effective if the repetitive paris of debates, the committee stages and some of the purely formal business were eliminated The Commission is convinced that the important purposes for which Parliamentary broadcasts were introduced, and indeed the prestige of Parliament itself, would be immensely furthered by the adoption of some such policy. That, surely, is a clear indication that the Australian Broadcasting Commission which, after all, handles parliamentary broadcasts, considers that there should be some revision and, to that degree, supports a part of Senator Marriott's motion. It is interesting to observe that the commission directed attention also to the repetitive part of parliamentary proceedings. I have made inquiries in relation to divisions. 1 find that a division takes about six and a half minutes in the House of Representatives. The records show that between noon on the 9th April, 1935, and 12.45 a.m. on the following day, there were no less than 83 divisions during the passage of a supply bill. One can imagine the reactions of persons listening to the broadcast of such proceedings. They would hear, over and over again, the direction from the Chair, " The ayes will pass to the right of the chair, and the noes to the left. The question is so-and-so." This would be accompanied by the buzz of 120 members conversing while the tellers counted the divisions. Coming to more recent times, during the passage of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Bill earlier this year, after 8 o'clock one evening there were 30 divisions. At an average of six and a half minutes for each division, the time occupied in divisions alone was about 195 minutes, or approximately three and a quarter hours. So, all that the listening public heard on that evening was a series of useless divisions. That occurred during the last sessional period of the Parliament. On that occasion, trie broadcast of the proceedings was reduced lo an absurdity. We say that we believe in the freedom of the individual to choose his entertainment. In all seriousness, I ask honorable senators whether they would prefer to listen to one division after another, or to a symphony concert? Why should a member of the public who has paid his licence-fee and who, perhaps, has worked hard all day and is seeking relaxation and entertainment in the evening, have to listen to endless divisions extending over a period of three and a quarter hours? 1 remind honorable senators that many radio listeners can get satisfactory reception of only one national station and that may be the one which broadcasts parliamentary proceedings. 1 believe that we should look at this matter sensibly and consider whether there should not be a modification of the practice of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings. 83 K6P 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator Brown - We could easily alter it. 83 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - If this debate leads to a modification of the present practice, I think it will have been completely justified. 1 am sure that nobody in his sound senses would support the continuance of a practice under which the people have to listen to parliamentary broadcasts- 83 K7Y 0 0 TANGNEY, Dorothy Senator Tangney - They do not have to listen to them. 83 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I think that people living in certain districts where satisfactory broadcast reception is obtained from only a national station which broadcasts parliamentary proceedings are perhaps entitled to more consideration than city dwellers who can exercise a wide choice of radio stations. To show that the instances that I have given of endless divisions taking place were not isolated occasions, I point out that after 8 p.m. on one night in 1951, there were 28. Obviously, therefore, there is a good case for some modification of the present practice. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the practice in other parts of the world. I do not think that the members of the Mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons, are denied an opportunity to express adequately democratic ideals because the proceedings of that British Parliament are not broadcast. The proceedings of the American Congress are not broadcast, while in New Zealand, only question time and selected parts of the proceedings are broadcast. I think he was stretching it a little too far when he implied that it was introduced because one particular party or group of parties was seeking to obtain a monopoly over others. That suggestion is quickly answered by the fact that the mother of all parliaments, the great House of Commons in England, does not choose to use this medium of disseminating propaganda. Proceedings are not broadcast from Congress or the Senate in America, and I do not think it can be suggested that in those two great countries the points of view of all parties are not expressed adequately. So, I come to the point at which I cannot support the suggestion that we should cease broadcasting the proceedings of this Parliament. In my view, the broadcasting of question time in Parliament is most interesting and informative. As a layman, it was most absorbing to me. I know from the people among whom I move from time to time that the listening audience is tremendous. Again, I believe it is right that we should broadcast speeches by our leaders on matters of great moment to the nation. They are of paramount importance and interest to a great listening audience, but, at the same time, nobody will ever convince me that the listening public wants to continue listening to broadcasts of the discussion of a bill which has been before both Houses of the Parliament for days, perhaps even for weeks, and which has reached the stage at which nothing new can be said upon it. Again, I shall never be convinced that the public is anxious to listen at a time when we have nothing but division after division, perhaps for hours. Senator Marriott's suggestion is well worth considering. His motion has focused our attention on a serious problem. We have now a broadcasting committee of which Senator Marriott is a member. It is an all-party committee. Its members have been drawn from all parties of the two Houses and I suggest that this committee should go to work, that it should call evidence if necessary and that it should examine the suggestions made to it from time to time by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its reports. If this were done I am confident that in the long run we should see introduced some modification of the present system, a modification which would take nothing from the great listening audience but which, on the contrary, would give the Australian people a better overall idea of what the Parliament is doing. It may be in some tabloid or concentrated form; certainly it should be in a form that can be readily understood by the people. After all, radio was .intended primarily as a form of entertainment. I know that one man's meat is another man's poison. Some people like chamber music, yet, at the present time, on Saturday afternoons all one can hear over the radio is some fellow talking about horses. We have to take that, whether we like it or not. 84 KPI 0 0 KENDALL, Roy Senator Kendall - Some people even like cricket. 84 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - Some people even like listening to broadcasts of cricket matches. We must provide a good cross section of entertainment for the public, and if the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is handled properly more people will take an interest in them. That part of the radio programme should become educational and informative. It could stimulate interest in our National Parliament; but if we allow things to continue as they are, we shall kill interest in our National Parliament. Here we have an excellent opportunity to readjust our broadcasting system and make it something that will be good for the Parliament and the nation. 84 K6P Queensland 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator BROWN .-- At the outset, I commend Senator Marriott for bringing forward this matter. . It gives us a splendid opportunity to discuss an important subject, although I disagree with his suggestion that it should be discussed only by the Senate. I see no reason why it should not be discussed by the House of Representatives also. 1 do not know what he had in mind in suggesting that discussion be confined to this chamber. Senator Marriott also suggested that he had looked at speeches delivered ten years ago, that he has listened to broadcasts and that he finds that ten years ago the questions being asked were similar to those asked to-day. If he is alive in twenty years' time no doubt he will notice that what appear to be similar questions will be asked then. Might 1 remind him that times change, that personalities and circumstances change and that although the questions might appear to be similar, generally speaking they will actually become vastly different individually. Senator Marriott then said that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was harmful and wasteful. He said that people did not want it. I have spoken to many about the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. When I was President of the Senate, the then Prime Minister of New Zealand told me that if the people of New Zealand were given a vote on whether parliamentary proceedings should be broadcast, they would vote overwhelmingly in favour of it. Many people agree that we should have certain rights and privileges. They might not listen even though they agree that proceedings should be broadcast. They might turn off their radios when certain senators speak. On one occasion, Senator Foll, as he then was, told me that he hated speaking over the air because immediately he rose to speak his vivid imagination made him almost hear thousands of clicks as people began switching off their radios. I said to him that it was no wonder if they switched off because, having been forced, as President, to sit in the chair and listen to him, I could well understand their doing so. No doubt, Mr. Deputy President, there have been many times, when certain senators were speaking, when you would have liked to turn off the debate and have a quiet nap. It is absurd to say that Parliament is ruled by the microphone. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has pointed out, there are many members of the Parliament who think that they are great orators, and who imagine that people are waiting with bated breath to hear them speak; but I agree that there is nothing wrong with broadcasting speeches on important matters. We have many debates on matters of urgent interest to the public and it is essential that they be broadcast for the benefit and information of our people. They should be allowed to listen to debates on the air. I believe that argument was rather weak. I was amazed to hear Senator Marriott suggest that if we were to turn off the microphones and no longer permit the broadcasting of speeches by members of Parliament, the newspapers of Australia would publish reports of our speeches. Senator Marriott is an optimist. If there were no broadcasting whatever, we would not get one extra line in the press. There was a time when all the speeches were printed. In South Australia and Tasmania, the newspaper reporters took a full account of the speeches, and their reports were published in the form of " Hansard ". I do not believe that the newspaper proprietors would bother about our speeches because they have to appeal to the people so that they can sell their newspapers. The people want something different and exciting. Newspaper work has degenerated in a large measure simply because journalists have educated the mass of the people to expect exciting news. If they do not get it, circulation falls. I do not blame the newspaper proprietors. If we were running a newspaper, we would expect to make it pay, and the people must get what they are seeking. Senator Marriott referred to what he termed " mythical listeners ". I say that there are thousands of listeners, at various times, throughout Australia. I have met many people, and have been astonished when they asked me questions about certain matters that had arisen in this chamber. Sometimes they happened when I was not in the chamber, and I have had to talk myself out of trouble. Fortunately, I have a facility in that direction, and that is an asset for a politician. I almost agreed with Senator Marriott on another point that he raised. If there had been a division at the time, I might have been on his side. I thought he was on the right lines when he said there should be some investigation into the alteration of broadcasting times, and the bringing forward of certain speeches. 85 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator Henty - Will the honorable senator sing a song during divisions? 85 K6P 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator BROWN -I want to make my speech as interesting as I can. I will not sing to Senator Henty, but perhaps I shall tell a story or two. Some time ago, I read the autobiography of Lord Snowden. I heard him speak on many occasions years ago when the world was wide and the heart was young. Lord Snowden said that the whole Parliament should not sit as a committee. Of course, he was speaking of the United Kingdom Parliament, which had a membership exceeding 600. He said it was foolish to expect 600 people sitting in parliament, especially in committee, to conduct the business of the nation. When we are discussing the second reading of a measure, we are dealing with general principles as applied to the bill, but when we are in committee we discuss details, and they can be very boring. I remember that " Punch " once recorded that the Duke of Devonshire had spoken at some length. When he had finished, a lady in his audience said to him, " My dear Duke, while you were speaking you were asleep ". The Duke replied, " Oh, no! I. was not asleep. I wish I had been; my speech was so boring." Speeches made in committee are boring because they deal with details. I would favour a change in the broadcasting arrangements to omit the committee stages, but I would be utterly and bitterly opposed to any attempt to stop the people from hearing second-reading debates, which are of great importance to the nation. Senator Marriott said that the proceedings sometimes gave the impression of a donnybrook. Some listeners are delighted to listen to proceedings in the House of Representatives. One woman told me a few weeks ago that the Senate was too sedate, but she liked to listen to the House of Representatives. To that extent, I suppose that honorable members in another place are serving a useful purpose if they can be entertaining to somebody. We should not abolish broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings simply because of a rustling of papers or the impression that a donnybrook is in progress. That is a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.Probably the trouble could be rectified it the technicians set to work on it. As it is, I believe they have improved the broadcasting reception compared with the earlier days. Senator Marriott said that there was tedious repetition. Bills were discussed by the House of Representatives, and then debated in the Senate where similar arguments were adduced. 1 agree with him completely, but instead of abolishing broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, we should abolish the Senate. Of course, that would not find any favour with my present listeners. 86 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Anderson - Would Senator Brown vote for the abolition of the Senate? 86 K6P 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator BROWN - Certainly I would not. When I first entered this Parliament, I spoke at Rockhampton, and at the close of the meeting a man asked, " Senator Brown, do you support the abolition of the Senate? " I replied, " Certainly I do. but please do not abolish it just now; 1 have only just been elected ". Although I believe in supporting my party's platform, which provides for the abolition of the Senate, 1 know the people would not agree to it so it is useless to talk about it. 86 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Anderson - You are not going to try to do it gently? 86 K6P 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator BROWN - I am not going to try at all. I am a realist. I have been here 25 years, and I know I will not be here another 25 years whether the Senate is abolished or not. At this late hour, 1 am not going around the country trying to convince the people that the Senate has deteriorated and is no longer of any service. A senator who was a very rich man was discussing the Senate with me once in a rather derogatory way. He was of the opinion that perhaps it .should be abolished. 1 told him that I would agree with him provided that after it was abolished our salaries were paid to us, as displaced senators, for the rest of our lives. That was twenty years ago. There is a constant struggle among senators and members of the House of Representatives to get on the air, and 1 do not blame them for that. I have been a senator for about 25 years. Indeed, I am the father of the .Senate, but I do not get any medals for that. In my long and interesting career in the Senate, for which I am most grateful to the people of Queensland, who sent me here, I have seen honorable senators become quite excited with each other and fight bitterly over measures that have been presented to us. I have been as bad as the rest in that respect; and our words have been embalmed in " Hansard " but have been read by very few. After all those speeches and struggles, what has been accomplished? In my 25 years here, not one bill has been amended very seriously, and we might as well have passed the measures put before us at the beginning without speaking and struggling about them. But with the introduction of broadcasting that has changed. When honorable senators rise now they know that they are not simply trying to convince the members of the Government or of the Opposition, whichever it may be, but are also speaking to thousands of good Australians. All politicians are exhibitionists to some extent, and much pleasure is given to those who are speaking from this chamber when they know that their words are being broadcast to many thousands of their countrymen. When I was President of the Senate, Mr. Speaker Rosevear and myself often received complaints from members of the Parliament that they were not given enough broadcasting time. Mr. Rosevear and myself discussed this matter and we decided to get the officers of the Parliament to look up the records and find out just how long each honorable senator and honorable member had spoken while the proceedings were being broadcast. We discovered that the three gentlemen who had complained most bitterly were among the five who had been given most time on the air. Of course, men are only human, and they like to receive as much broadcasting time as possible. I believe that it is only right that a representative, or senator, from Western Australia, for example, should be given broadcasting time when it best suits the people of that State to listen to him, that is round about 10 o'clock at night here. I have no objection to that, and when I have been asked to relinquish my right lo speak so that a Western Australian could use the time, I have cheerfully agreed to do so. I have done that because I think of my party, and because of the benefits that will accrue to the benighted Western Australians. A duty devolves upon every member of both Houses of the Parliament to try to speak in such a way that he will interest and inform those listening to him over the radio. I am not averse to a man using his ability as an entertainer to tell a story if it applies to a matter under discussion. Not long ago I was due to speak while the proceedings here were being broadcast, but as I did not feel like speaking at that time I told the Whip that I did not intend to accept my opportunity. That reminds me that about that time I was having a conversation with a " Hansard " reporter, and I told him a story that I had heard from Sir Arthur Fadden who, as honorable senators know, is one of our best raconteurs. The matter before the Senate at that time was television, and I was speaking of my experiences in England last year where I spent, many hours watching television. I agreed with Sir Arthur Fadden that the television pictures were very lifelike. To indicate how lifelike they were, Sir Arthur Fadden told me that there was once a Yorkshireman named Jerry Higginbotham, who was working on the wharfs. He had a nice wife and a nice home, but a cissy sort of fellow began to hang around his wife. He finally told his wife not to allow him to come near the place any more. One day Jerry came home , early from his work on the wharfs, and it so happened that the cissy was there when he got home, but jumped behind the television set to hide. Jerry went in and sat down to watch a football match on television. It was a soccer match between Wolverhampton and Spartak. He watched it intently for a while, and after about, twenty minutes of crouching down behind the television cabinet the cissy got cramps, jumped up and ran out. Jerry looked up startled and said, " That's funny, I never saw that man do anything illegal. What did the referee send him off for? " Any one who' has seen television will realize that that story illustrates how realistic the pictures are; and if television is introduced to this Parliament it will be just as realistic. However, we can be too realistic, like the alderman who was opposed to girls wearing bikini costumes on the seafront. He was not opposed to them for the same reason as the wowsers, but because he thought the girls looked better in less revealing costumes. That lends point to my belief that while broadcasting of parliamentary procedures is a benefit, the televising of parliamentary proceedings would show too much. I would like honorable senators and members of the House of Representatives to endeavour to make the broadcasting of our proceedings more inviting to those who love to listen to the debates. While I was President of the Senate I suggested to Mr. Chifley that it would be a good thing if we could record the voices of senators and members and play them back to the speakers so that they could listen to themselves, recognize their faults and attempt to correct their diction, grammar and so on. We obtained a wire recorder and placed it on the Senate side, and with the assistance of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Loof we had it wired up. Before that was done, the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee had met, and I had informed its members of what I intended to do. They said to me, " If you do that you will find yourself up against this committee". I said "Why?" They replied, " Because you are contravening the act. You must not re-broadcast ". I said, " Good heavens! I am not going to rebroadcast. I am only going to take down what senators say, so that they can hear themselves". I was stopped from doing so and I was rather angry, and I threatened that I would make a record irrespective of the committee's ruling. However, when I cooled down I realized that that would be a foolish thing to do. For three months, the pros and cons of this matter were considered by the Solicitor-General, and after much cogitating on his part I received a letter to say, " Mr. President, this matter has been settled. You can place a tape or wire recorder in your chambers ". I did so, and the result was remarkable. 1 think Senator Aylett was one of the first to record on it and listen to himself. He then sought to improve himself, and next time he spoke in Hobart the community said that it was the best address over the air they had heard from him. That was all because he recorded his speech on the wire recorder, and after hearing himself took action to improve his method of speaking. About two years ago, I read an account in the " Sydney Morning Herald " of a parson in England who heard a record of one of his sermons on a tape recorder. He said, " Good heavens, have I been talking to my parishioners for 30 years like that?" They said, "That's you ". He said, " I take my oath, here and now, that I will not impose on my parishioners again until I have improved myself" He kept out of the pulpit for twelve months, and when he went back his congregation hardly recognized his preaching because he had become such a splendid speaker. One of our own senators, a most popular member of the Government, heard, himself on tape and received a great surprise. I said to him, " Senator, the boys on our side think you are very human". He said, " Why? Why am I very human? " I said, "To 'er' is human". He said, 'I don't er ', I cut that out years ago ". I said, " Brother, come and listen to yourself in my chambers ". He came in and listened to one of his speeches that 1 had recorded, and he exclaimed, " Good God! Is that me? " I said, " Yes, that's you all right ". Next day when he was speaking - he was in Opposition then - instead of " er-ing " he paused. When that great evangelist, Evan Evans, who was a great orator, first started in South Wales to convert the people to Christianity - or to his idea of Christianity - he asked a prominent divine, who had listened to him one night, "What did you think of my speech? " The prominent divine replied, " Cultivate the pause ". This senator cultivated the pause, and he improved out of sight. I will not bore the Senate any longer. Senator Anderson made a splendid point in regard to divisions. How conservative we are in this Parliament, both Labour and Liberal. We have adopted a certain course of action, and we do not like to move away from it. We go on, year in and year out, in the same way and bore the listeners intolerably. Senator Anderson made a good suggestion as to what, should happen in parliamentary broadcasts while divisions are being taken. I remind honorable senators who are cricket lovers of what happens in that benighted country overseas where it rains nearly all the year round. It was remarkable, however, that during my visit to England, in four months the skies were clouded on only about seven days. Because of the rain cricket test matches are often interrupted, but the British Broadcasting Corporation has dealt with the situation in an admirable fashion. Although that commission is often criticized it is very advanced, and I express my appreciation of it. When rain stops play it brings some of the test cricketers to the microphone, and they talk about cricket. One of the experts on cricket is Johnny Moyes, who is a brother of Bishop Moyes, and during one of these rainy intervals I heard him broadcast many stories about cricket. I cannot say that I am a cricket lover, but, when I was in England, I was interested to watch the test matches on television. It is a delight to listen to Johnny Moyes discussing cricket and relating interesting anecdotes. He and his colleagues are intelligent and entertaining. Surely in this chamber and in the House of Representatives some means could be devised to relieve the boredom of listeners during the recording of divisions. What is to prevent an expert on parliamentary procedure or parliamentary history relating a few good stories, or explaining to the listening public some of the things that happen in Parliament, such as the procedure of passing a bill. I should be in favour of that being done. Some of the stories of the late Joe Gander, one of the finest humorists in Parliament, and also of that veteran, the late Sir George Reid, could be recounted with great interest and entertainment. Stories of political activities in this House would also appeal to the listeners. I recall one occasion in the House of Representatives when our late departed friend, the Honorable Archie Cameron, was speaking as a private member. He was a great gentleman, and 1 admired him, and we all appreciated his strength of character and his personality. 1 always enjoyed his company. He was talking on country matters and dealt with potatoes, sorghum and wheat, and then he said quietly, " Now I come to onions ". Speaker Rosevear interjected, "And you will supply the tripe, also ". Some years ago, I made two broadcasts over the Australian national radio stations and two over a Queensland commercial broadcasting station. I was subsequently asked to prepare a number of broadcast talks on humour in Parliament and the history of Parliament. As a result I spent many hours delving into old " Hansard " reports and reading many books on Parliament. I gathered together many stories, but before I was able to broadcast them the war broke out, and I became tired of my research. In addition, the man who was to employ me to give the talks died. However, I collected many stories- which I could broadcast to the people of Australia dealing with political activities and incidents in Parliament, which would interest and entertain the listening public while divisions were being taken. Perhaps the only trouble might be that the public would say, " For goodness' sake, cut out the broadcast of these speeches and let us listen to Gordon Brown ". 89 KSS South Australia 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER . - Senator Marriott is to be commended' for raising the question of whether parliamentary debates should be broadcast, because it gives honorable senators an opportunity to express their views and to give some of the impressions they have gained on this subject in the course of their duties in city and country areas. I emphatically favour the complete abolition of all parliamentary broadcasts. 89 L8E 0 0 CAMERON, Donald Senator Cameron - What about " Hansard "? 89 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - I cannot support the proposal to broadcast only portions of proceedings such as questions and main speeches. Questions should be asked as a means for elucidating useful information from a Minister, but since the introduction of broadcasting my impression is that very subtle propaganda has been engendered into questions which are now asked more for propaganda purposes, showmanship, or whatever else one wishes to call it, than for the purpose of obtaining real information. If it is decided to broadcast only certain speeches, who is to decide which ones should be broadcast? Who is to decide whether a speech will be important, because even this wise Senate cannot yet read people's minds? That is why I advocate the complete abolition of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. I base my opinion on the fact that it was my privilege to see this chamber in operation before broadcasting was introduced. I say emphatically that the tone and tenor of debating were on a much higher plane then than they are now when certain sittings are broadcast. I have also ascertained the opinion of people who have seen the chamber functioning since proceedings were broadcast; I am sorry that they did not see it before. I repeat that in my humble opinion broadcasting has not raised the level of debates by any means; in fact I think debates have deteriorated. As I proceed I hope I can give a few facts to support that contention. When broadcasting was introduced its advocates said that as a result the public would be better informed on political matters. I ask honorable senators whether they honestly believe that the public is better informed on political matters to-day than it was twenty years ago? 90 K3R ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - I think so. 90 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - 1 would be happy to agree with the honorable senator, but I do not think broadcasting has improved the public's general knowledge of parliamentary procedure. How often does one find people who do not know whether one is a member of the Senate or a member of the House of Representatives? 90 KAW 0 0 WEDGWOOD, Ivy Senator Wedgwood - Or a member of a State House. 90 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - Or a member of a State House, or whether we have two Houses of Parliament at Canberra. When broadcasting was introduced it was a novelty. Whilst I admit that it is very difficult to assess the number of people who listen to parliamentary broadcasts, yet it is believed - this is where I differ from many other speakers - on the best available information that only 8 per cent, of the listening public listen to parliamentary broadcasts. Indeed, I venture to say that that is an over-estimate. 90 KBL 0 0 WOOD, Ian Senator Wood - One per cent. 90 K3R ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - Senator Wood says 1 per cent. 90 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - I am not doubting what Senator Wood says, but I am speaking for myself. I am relying on information I have gained from what I think is a relatively good source. It is one of our privileges to have our own ideas, and if any honorable senator can bowl up a curly one and say that I am incorrect I think I can make a courteous reply to justify the claim of 8 per cent. 90 K3R ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - The honorable senator has to argue it out with Senator Wood; I am only telling him what Senator Wood thinks. 90 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - Senator Wood and I disagree on some things, but we disagree with good grace. To-day, the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is not a novelty, and I suggest that perhaps even now the figure might be closer to that quoted by Senator Wood. I am not suggesting that that is so. All I am saying is that the figure of 8 per cent, was given some years ago, but, perhaps, Senator Wood's figure may be nearer the mark. However, I know that the number of listeners to parliamentary broadcasts has decreased over the last five years. Whether it be 8 per cent, or otherwise let us briefly consider the outlook of those who listen to parliamentary debates. Whatever brand of politics they may support they are men who are keenly interested in politics. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Are they any better informed on politics to-day through the medium of broadcasts? I very much doubt it. Remarks that have been made this evening bear out my assessment that perhaps the only thing they have gained is the ability to distinguish between showmanship in politics that is exhibited over the air and the plain down-to-earth political debates. I am more than ever fortified in that opinion by what has transpired in this debate this evening as the result of the contributions by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), Senator Brown and others. They have all agreed that there is jockeying for position - collusion if one likes to call it - and that debates are arranged to give to the public not a true but a false idea of debates in the Parliament. Prior to the introduction of broadcasting the public of Australia were dependent on the press to report faithfully the debates of Parliament. In addition " Hansard " was readily available. I believe that those were two excellent, valuable media for public information. Even if broadcasting were abolished, and I favour its abolition, the loss of information to the public of Australia would be very small indeed because the people who now listen would either read reports in the press or, better still, they would read " Hansard ". If broadcasting were abolished there would be a very desirable reduction of sensationalism and showmanship. I repeat that the broadcasting of parliamentary debates has not enhanced the reputation of the Parliament. When we consider some of the arrangements that are made for parliamentary broadcasting, what do we find? We find that the time a man or woman may speak when the proceedings are being broadcast has been mutually limited to 30 minutes. For many well-informed speakers, to whom I listen with a great deal of pleasure in this chamber, 30 minutes is not sufficient time to enable them to deal with subjects under discussion. The result is that when a speaker is unable, in the allotted time, to bring out certain points, a political opponent who follows him will seize upon those points and criticize him, most unfairly, for his failure to deal with them. The senator so criticized has no redress. As 1 said earlier, the standard of debate in this chamber' is much higher when our proceedings are not being broadcast than when we are on the air. I was pleased to hear Senator Brown refer to what occurs in committee. In my humble opinion, it is at that stage that the down-to-earth business of politics is carried on. It is then that considerable cut and thrust takes place in debate, and senators have an opportunity to bring out every point, even getting' down to particular lines or words of a bill. The Minister in charge of the measure has an opportunity to reply fully. Although, as Senator Brown and other honorable senators have said, this is the very essence of the parliamentary system, it is not popular with the listening public. Because the very kernel of parliamentary debate - the strongest feature of our parliamentary system - does not make a popular appeal, it is very rarely broadcast. It is very hard to gauge whether or not the listening public favours broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings, and 1 doubt whether any member of the Parliament receives much mail for or against a continuance of the practice. I certainly know that the mail received by the presiding officer on this subject is not voluminous. The bulk of the correspondence received by the presiding officers and by senators and members emanates from a hard core Of political enthusiasts. Therefore, it cannot be accepted as giving an accurate idea of the reactions of the general public to parliamentary broadcasts. I come now to an important aspect of this matter, namely, the wishes of the general public. Much of the correspondence that honorable senators receive confirms the belief that many people object to parliamentary broadcasts because they seriously interfere with advertised programmes. At a conservative estimate, I should say that 92 per cent, of the listening public who object to parliamentary broadcasts do so because of the interruption that they cause to programmes. We receive many complaints as a result of the cancellation of advertised programmes due to the uncertain sittings of the Parliament. As we all know, when the Parliament is in session not even a tentative time-table is arranged, nor is a specified period of time usually allowed for the consideration of bills. Even if the Government has in mind a likely date for the end of a sessional period, that information is successfully withheld from private members. The Australian Broadcasting Commission must arrange its programmes months ahead. In both New South Wales and Queensland, where the " A.B.C. Weekly" is published, it is necessary for the copy to go to press many weeks ahead. In these circumstances, is it any wonder that the commission receives hundreds of complaints about inaccuracies in that publication when programmes have to be altered to suit the wishes or whims of the Parliament. I shall relate one or two instances in which that has occurred. As honorable senators will recall, it was generally believed in Canberra that the last sessional period of the Parliament would terminate at the end of May. The commission apparently shared this " inside " information, and arranged to broadcast on 19th June, an orchestral concert in which one of the leading pianists of the world was to be featured. However, as the Parliament was still in session the broadcast had to be hurriedly cancelled. In consequence, complaints poured in to the commission from every part of Australia. 91 K3R ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - Could the concert not have been broadcast by another station? 91 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - I shall come to that aspect of the matter in a moment. The commission had also arranged for a concerto and vocal concert to be broadcast from Western Australia on 21st June. That broadcast, also, had to be cancelled because the Parliament was still sitting, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission was deluged with telegrams from the general public complaining about the cancellation of programmes that it was justly entitled to hear. Of course, the number of complaints received is always in direct ratio to the popularity of the programme that has to be cancelled. We have been told this evening, that, in 1953, listeners to parliamentary broadcasts were more numerous than they are to-day. In that year, the proposed broadcast of an opera was cancelled because the Parliament was still sitting. Letters flowed in to the commission from all over Australia asking why the broadcast had to be cancelled. Such complaints are just as frequent to-day as in 1953. Due to the uncertain sittings of the Parliament, the Australian Broadcasting Commission cannot arrange for regular sessions on certain stations on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and sometimes on Fridays. I point out that radio audiences are built on the regularity of programme sessions. A minute or two ago Senator O'Byrne asked why a concert broadcast which had to be cancelled because of the parliamentary sittings could not have been handled by another station. At first sight, that would be an excellent idea but immediately a programme is transferred to another station a chain reaction sets in because the other programme has to be altered, and so the difficulties snowball. However, irrespective of our individual opinions as to whether or not the parliamentary proceedings should be broadcast, I am sure we all agree that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has done an excellent job in broadcasting orchestral programmes, lt has built up Australian orchestras, lt has brought to Australia the world's greatest conductors and artists. It has made a tremendous contribution to our cultural life. Mr. President, I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 92 miscellaneous 92 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I. have received from the First Secretary of the American Embassy a letter of thanks for the resolution of sympathy passed by the Senate on the occasion of the death of His Excellency the Ambassador for the United States of America. 92 adjournment Senator W. E. Aylett. Motion by Senator Cooper proposed - That the Senate do now adjourn. 92 K0Z Tasmania 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT .- 1 should like to. take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber for granting me leave of absence during my recent illness. It was the first sick leave I had had in eighteen years of service in the Senate and I thank honorable senators very much indeed for it. I also thank them for the kind messages I received from them. I should like especially to thank Senator Wardlaw, who visited me several times in hospital during my illness. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.2 p.m.